PDA

View Full Version : Question about pendulum during eclipse



djdugan
2006-Dec-02, 12:44 AM
I recently read an article about "allias effect" (Think I have that right) anyway, the observation was that during an eclipse (lunar) that a pendulum increases speed (albeit slightly)
The article went on to say how mysterious this was, and how no one could figure out, or come up with theory as to justfy why this was so..........

I do not understand the confusion, if I do understand the question ?
But during an full lunar eclipse, would we not experience a slight lessoning of gravity on earth, (as now we have Moon and Sun pulling in unison against earth's gravity) resulting in a increase in the speed (slight) of the pendulum ?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.......

01101001
2006-Dec-02, 01:43 AM
I recently read an article about "allias effect"

Wikipedia: Allais effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect)


A recent published article on the topic in a mainstream scientific journal (Flandern, 2003) concludes that there have been "no unambiguous detections [of an Allais effect] within the past 30 years when consciousness of the importance of [experimental] controls was more widespread." This paper also suggests a mechanism that might cause slight gravitational variations during an eclipse (high speed high-altitude winds for which there is no observational evidence), but admits that "the gravitation anomaly discussed here is about a factor of 100,000 too small to explain the Allais excess pendulum precession... during eclipses".

A review article by Chris Duif, which surveys the field of gravitational anomalies in general, concludes that the question remains open, and that such investigations should be pursued, in view of their relatively inexpensive nature and the enormous implications if genuine anomalies are actually confirmed.

Exotic explanations for Allais and related effects have not gained significant traction among mainstream scientists.

You can probably read a lot about it, both in this forum and about the Web, with the right search term.


But during an full lunar eclipse, would we not experience a slight lessoning of gravity on earth, (as now we have Moon and Sun pulling in unison against earth's gravity) resulting in a increase in the speed (slight) of the pendulum ?

Why wouldn't a "lessening of gravity" (if that's what you think happens) produce a decrease in pendulum speed? Think about a pendulum in microgravity: it would barely move.

djdugan
2006-Dec-02, 02:42 AM
With a pendulum in motion,(Given Mass (X) in motion), contained within a static gravitaional field(Restrained by given Grav Field)

Suddenly, we reduce Grav field, (some small quantity) (IE by eclipse)
The (kinetic) Mass would remain constant, and be restrained less, increasing speed and length of arc

I'm running this mind experiment, where we have this pendulum swinging away in a given grav field and suddenly in mid swing we bring an opposing grav field over top of it...(Say the moon at an altitude of 20,000 Miles). the pendulum is now in Zero grav, and (still containing its momentum) it starts circling around the "fulcrum" pivot point of the pendulum endlessly...

KingNor
2007-Jan-01, 05:37 AM
the pendulum moving faster durring a solar eclips is counter-intuitive.

Unless.. maybe if the pendulum is on the far side of the earth from the solar eclipse?

Ronald Brak
2007-Jan-01, 05:54 AM
What the difference in gravitational effects between a solar eclipse and a normal new moon? Not jolly much I'd suspect.

Changes in light pressure caused by an eclipse could cause tiny changes in pendelum speed.

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-16, 07:45 PM
I have been looking for current information on the Allias effect findings and came across this thread. From what I've read there were plans to carefully repeat these observations to prove or disprove the deviation during the 1999 and 2005 eclipses but I haven't been able to find anything on it other than here: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm.
The wikipedia article seems to contradict the nasa article.

Allias' original observations were made during the total Solar eclipse of June 30, 1954. He observed the pendulum changing its angle of rotation by 13.5 degrees. He again observed this during a Solar eclipse in 1959. Since this is an easy and little or no cost experiment I'm surprised 50 years have gone by with no one clearing this up. Is there perhaps some reason the scientific community would avoid addressing it more fully? From what I read there were plenty of willing participants. I ran across several articles of others observing the same thing.

At the new Moon, the energy is the most passive or most peaceful as compared to the full Moon being a more agressive energy. At new and full moon, the Sun and Moon produce tidal bulges that add together to produce extreme tides showing this is an extreme movement time on earth. When the Moon is aligned exactly between Sun and Earth it makes sense that there could be a deviation such as was observed by Allias. During normal new Moons it would be so slight, if there at all, that it would go unnoticed. But during a total eclipse the Moon is blocking the normal interaction between the Sun and Earth as much as is possible. So if there were to be any effect it would be noticeable then.

I'm also trying to get a clear visual of what he observed. Excuse me if I appear ignorant as I'm clearly not a physics major. :shifty: :shhh: Would someone be so kind as to explain what Allias saw in terms even a child could understand. I've only seen one of these pendulums in action once but I have some understanding of how it works. If the normal rotation is 0.19 degrees/minute what does it mean that it changed its rotation by 13.5 degrees during the 2.5 hour eclipse? Does that mean that during the 150 minutes of the eclipse it moved 42 degrees instead of 28.5 degrees?:eh:

01101001
2007-Feb-17, 05:41 AM
I have been looking for current information on the Allias effect findings and came across this thread. From what I've read there were plans to carefully repeat these observations to prove or disprove the deviation during the 1999 and 2005 eclipses but I haven't been able to find anything on it other than here: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm.
The wikipedia article seems to contradict the nasa article.

The Wikipedia article is Allais Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect), just so we have the link again.

Noever's planned look for the effect appears not to have happened. A dubious pro-Allais-effect site, allais.info (http://allais.info/) (WARNING: Guard your eyes; the author appears to hate good website design), has this (http://www.allais.info/priorartdocs/noever.htm) about Noever:


nothing seems to have come of the 1999 eclipse experiments

It looks to me that the number of failed attempts at replication are enough to explain why the effect doesn't seem to gain traction with the mainstream. That occasionally some experimenters get odd results, makes me think that people who are interested in the topic should continue to invest their time, resources, and efforts to figuring out what is going on.

I await the persuasive data. I don't believe I shall go seeking it though.

You may enjoy Against the Mainstream topics Allais effect casts doubt on GR? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=13645) and The Strange Disappearance of Maurice Allais (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=232310#post232310).

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-18, 03:45 PM
Thank you for these links, quite interesting and a lot of reading ahead of me, especially the links in the letter from Noever.


Noever's planned look for the effect appears not to have happened....snip...It looks to me that the number of failed attempts at replication are enough to explain why the effect doesn't seem to gain traction with the mainstream...

I think you misunderstood. It did happen but it was never published. He suddenly left Nasa taking all his data with him. Nasa seems to not totally discount it otherwise they wouldn't bother to have the page on their site.

One thought that occured to me as to the ability to repeat it. It may be more and less noticable at certain declinations and certain latitudes.

Thanks again,
Connie

01101001
2007-Feb-18, 06:41 PM
I think you misunderstood. It did happen but it was never published. He suddenly left Nasa taking all his data with him. Nasa seems to not totally discount it otherwise they wouldn't bother to have the page on their site.

Sorry for giving that impression. Perhaps I am less trustful of the sourcing site I referenced than you might be. By "Noever's look appeared not to have happened" I was including the publishing of the report on the data collected as part of the look.

It's clear there was no report published, or it would be easy to find. It's less clear that the look happened, or that meaningful data was gathered. If they did actually and didn't report, that's as good as not looking to me.

It's pretty hard to tell what NASA may or may not discount by measuring what they bother to include in their websites' contents. Sometimes PR happens for PR's sake.

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-18, 06:56 PM
I see, thank your for clarifying. I guess I'd have to know under what circumstances Noever and the others left. I suppose it could be just coincidence in the timing but it seems that his notes would have belonged to the boss and someone would have been there to use or discard his work when he left. It wouldn't surprise me if there is really something they discovered that it might have military value and be suppressed. There seems to be more that just the one group who support Allias and his findings. I didn't see any sign of Noever mentioned at Mobular Tech either.

01101001
2007-Feb-18, 07:42 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if there is really something they discovered that it might have military value and be suppressed.

Such simple -- some very inexpensive -- experiments don't seem to me to be very good fodder for theories about suppression of results because of military value. Any nation, indeed almost any individual with a travel budget, can perform similar rock-on-a-rope experiments.

Noever was counting on volunteer efforts at several museums. Does the suppression keep those mouths in Germany, Austria, Italy, Australia, UAE, France, Belgium, Russia shut, too? Whose military is it that would be doing the suppressing?

Crux Australis
2007-Feb-21, 05:49 PM
Using the equation for the period of a simple pendulum T=2.pi.sqrt(l/g) where l is the length of the pendulum (let's say, one meter) and g is the acceleration due to gravity (close enough to 9.8 m/s/s), we can see that the period of a one meter long pendulum is 2.00 s. If gravity were (for example) reduced to 5.7 m/s/s the period for the same pendulum would be 2.7 s, which is a longer time. Hence, if gravity is reduced the period increases, which means the pendulum slows down. This is opposite what the effect would suggest.

swansont
2007-Feb-22, 03:23 PM
Using the equation for the period of a simple pendulum T=2.pi.sqrt(l/g) where l is the length of the pendulum (let's say, one meter) and g is the acceleration due to gravity (close enough to 9.8 m/s/s), we can see that the period of a one meter long pendulum is 2.00 s. If gravity were (for example) reduced to 5.7 m/s/s the period for the same pendulum would be 2.7 s, which is a longer time. Hence, if gravity is reduced the period increases, which means the pendulum slows down. This is opposite what the effect would suggest.

You know, I looked at that and thought that it couldn't be right, getting a nice round number for the period. After all the pendulum problems I worked through as a student and TA, I never noticed that pi and sqrt(g) are equal to better than half a percent. It must be because calculators became commonly available before I started doing physics, and we just punch the numbers in. That's a shortcut one might readily recall if doing everything by hand or with a slide rule.

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-22, 03:58 PM
I suppose you're right 011, unless someone thought of something the other's didn't. It just occurred to me that during that same 1954 eclipse Jupiter was completely occulted and in alignment with earth, Moon and Sun. Haven't they learned that Jupiter plays an important role in the area of gravitation happenings on earth? I wonder if this has to play into the equation.

Crux, what if the gravity were being increased rather than decreased? With Jupiter anywhere around things tend to expand. I noticed with each of the eclipses observed on this page: http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/blackprior/noever/decrypting.htm
either Jupiter was close by or his ascending node was within conjunction or at major angle to the ecliptic. Also, with each eclipse listed to have observed the Allias effect usually the node of the Moon was within 4 degrees, except in 61 when the ascending node of Jupiter was near 0 degrees Cancer, thus 90 degrees from the ecliptic.. I feel really out of my league here with you guys, so thanks for your patience.

Gillianren
2007-Feb-22, 07:32 PM
Haven't they learned that Jupiter plays an important role in the area of gravitation happenings on earth?

No, in fact, they haven't. Jupiter hardly plays any role at all, because it's so far away.

Oh, and don't worry about feeling scientifically out of your depth with all of us. There are quite a few (including me!) who aren't actually scientists at all.

Roy Batty
2007-Feb-23, 12:40 PM
Exactly what Gillianren said. Here's a good page (by the BA himself:)) nicely explaining & illustrating the relative effects of gravity & tidal forces of the solar system bodies on the Earth:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planets.html

As you can see, Jupiter contributes only one hundredth of the gravity (maximum) than of our own moon, which itself only has a force on us of 3 millionths of Earth's!

Oh, forgetting my manners; welcome to the board AquarianEssence, I hope you stick around & learn many things about Astronomy here, I have :)

(Incidentally, that particular page has personal significance for me since it was by finding this, while attempting to allay a friends fears about May 2000, that I first discovered Bad Astronomy! :dance: was that really over 7 years ago?!).

Gillianren
2007-Feb-23, 08:05 PM
(Incidentally, that particular page has personal significance for me since it was by finding this, while attempting to allay a friends fears about May 2000, that I first discovered Bad Astronomy! :dance: was that really over 7 years ago?!).

Um, no, it wasn't. It's only February 2007; you've a couple of months to go before it's over 7 years later!

swansont
2007-Feb-23, 09:22 PM
Um, no, it wasn't. It's only February 2007; you've a couple of months to go before it's over 7 years later!

But he may have attempted to allay his friend's fear before it was May.

trinitree88
2007-Feb-23, 11:12 PM
The gravitational effect of the Sun on the Earth is undiminished by the passage of the Moon between the two...otherwise you'd see a change in the orbital mechanics of the Sun/Earth system.. (check with Celestial Mechanic)
There is however a way to effect the motion of the pendulum locally without "touching" it. A Foucault pendulum set up near a nuclear reactor which has been offline for refueling, will show a slight but steady deviation in it's motion due to a change in the local field gradient commensurate with the change in the ambient neutrino sea gradient as the reactor comes back online. Same said effect, previously predicted, is easier to see with a Mossbauer detector, original detector of the gravitational redshift (see Rebka, Pound,...Harvard Towers exp. Jefferson lab..circa 1960). Pete.

Gillianren
2007-Feb-24, 01:37 AM
But he may have attempted to allay his friend's fear before it was May.

Okay, you've got me there. Carry on!

hhEb09'1
2007-Feb-24, 03:05 AM
You know, I looked at that and thought that it couldn't be right, getting a nice round number for the period. After all the pendulum problems I worked through as a student and TA, I never noticed that pi and sqrt(g) are equal to better than half a percent. It must be because calculators became commonly available before I started doing physics, and we just punch the numbers in. That's a shortcut one might readily recall if doing everything by hand or with a slide rule.It's more than a coincidence. The "seconds" pendulum (one second per swing, or half period) was originally suggested as an easily duplicatable standard that would define the meter. After discussion, the variability of gravity on the earth argued against it, and they realized that 10,000,000 of them was very close to a quarter of the earth's circumference (that's the coincidence) and they could spend public money on a great expedition (road trip!).

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-25, 12:05 AM
Thank you for the welcome, Roy, and the link. You guys are great.

I have noticed the greater disasters (earthquakes, etc) seem to be when the Moon reaches it greater declination and is considered out of bounds, or beyond the greatest declination of the Sun. Also near the time of a perigee-syzygy when the Moon is at 90% or more of its mean closest approach to Earth. The tsunami of Dec. 26, 2004 met both of these conditions. I haven't looked at a lot of them yet. I did watch the earthquake notification site during the last Lunar extreme declination time and saw the measurements rise from 2-4 or so, to near 7 during that time. I just checked today since the declination is now out of bounds and rising. I noticed they have been rather low on the Richter scale but when the Moon crossed from south to north declination there was one at 6.7 on the 20th. Today there was a 6.2 near Peru. I'll keep watching over the next couple of days as it reaches the greatest declination on the 26th.

Trinitree, Can you explain in simple layman's terms why this happened? You know, physics for dummies? Could this in any way, or something similar explain the Allias effect?

trinitree88
2007-Feb-25, 01:54 AM
Thank you for the welcome, Roy, and the link. You guys are great.

I have noticed the greater disasters (earthquakes, etc) seem to be when the Moon reaches it greater declination and is considered out of bounds, or beyond the greatest declination of the Sun. Also near the time of a perigee-syzygy when the Moon is at 90% or more of its mean closest approach to Earth. The tsunami of Dec. 26, 2004 met both of these conditions. I haven't looked at a lot of them yet. I did watch the earthquake notification site during the last Lunar extreme declination time and saw the measurements rise from 2-4 or so, to near 7 during that time. I just checked today since the declination is now out of bounds and rising. I noticed they have been rather low on the Richter scale but when the Moon crossed from south to north declination there was one at 6.7 on the 20th. Today there was a 6.2 near Peru. I'll keep watching over the next couple of days as it reaches the greatest declination on the 26th.

Trinitree, Can you explain in simple layman's terms why this happened? You know, physics for dummies? Could this in any way, or something similar explain the Allias effect?

AquarianEssence. There has at least historically a few surprises re: quakes. It was a California high school teacher I believe, who correlated earthquake activity with the phases of the moon in the eighties. Some have argued that the lunar water tides, coupled with earth tides (yes it moves, too), causes relaxation of tectonic stresses between the plates with greater frequency within three days of the full moon each month. Statistically those three days ought to contain ~ 10% of a given months quakes...it's a lot higher than that. Pete

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-25, 04:07 PM
AquarianEssence. There has at least historically a few surprises re: quakes. It was a California high school teacher I believe, who correlated earthquake activity with the phases of the moon in the eighties. Some have argued that the lunar water tides, coupled with earth tides (yes it moves, too), causes relaxation of tectonic stresses between the plates with greater frequency within three days of the full moon each month. Statistically those three days ought to contain ~ 10% of a given months quakes...it's a lot higher than that. Pete

But I am referring to the larger quakes occuring during times that the declination of the Moon is OOB, ie beyond the limits that the Sun reaches. There has to be some reason the tsunami in 2004 occured at that full Moon and not at the one before or after. This would explain it, at least in part. As I said, I haven't had a chance to research it fully but I do see a pattern trying to be seen.

hhEb09'1
2007-Feb-25, 06:25 PM
AquarianEssence. There has at least historically a few surprises re: quakes. It was a California high school teacher I believe, who correlated earthquake activity with the phases of the moon in the eighties. Some have argued that the lunar water tides, coupled with earth tides (yes it moves, too), causes relaxation of tectonic stresses between the plates with greater frequency within three days of the full moon each month. Statistically those three days ought to contain ~ 10% of a given months quakes...it's a lot higher than that. PeteI visited the problem in the nineties, and at that time, the geophysics community seemed certain that there was no correlation. Do you have a reference to that work?

Of course, there should be a correlation, as tidal forces regularly stress the earth. Correlations with quakes and tides have been found on the moon, for instance. But the moon is almost dead tectonically, and that is the problem on earth. The quake production due to tectonic activity apparently swamps whatever correlation there might be with the tidal stress.

aurora
2007-Feb-25, 11:07 PM
But I am referring to the larger quakes occuring during times that the declination of the Moon is OOB, ie beyond the limits that the Sun reaches. There has to be some reason the tsunami in 2004 occured at that full Moon and not at the one before or after. This would explain it, at least in part. As I said, I haven't had a chance to research it fully but I do see a pattern trying to be seen.

There's a really good chance that other people have already looked at the problem statisically looking for correlations.

Using one quake as the basis for your theory isn't going to be sufficient, since it's occurance at the particular date and time could have been pretty much random. and humans are really good at thinking they see patterns in random noise.

Roy Batty
2007-Feb-26, 05:36 PM
Hey, the BA's new Sunday broadcast (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/02/25/q-ba-episode-4-the-gravity-of-the-situation/) has some relevance :)

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-26, 06:52 PM
Thanks, very informative. I loved it. I had to chuckle a little though at the final comments. How can one say that astrology (the study of the effects of the cosmos on the life of those inhabiting earth) is nonsense at the end of a statement that lays out the facts of just how much physical affect each of the planets and our Moon has on us human beings? Ask any doctor or police officer if the Moon doesn't have and affect on their work load around the full Moon due to some peoples tendancy to let their emotions get out of hand during that time. Since our body has about the same percentage of water as the earth, it stands to reason that we have cycles and tides similar to the earth as it is effected by Moon.

Ok, let me have it, I'm ready :-)

swansont
2007-Feb-26, 07:07 PM
Thanks, very informative. I loved it. I had to chuckle a little though at the final comments. How can one say that astrology (the study of the effects of the cosmos on the life of those inhabiting earth) is nonsense at the end of a statement that lays out the facts of just how much physical affect each of the planets and our Moon has on us human beings? Ask any doctor or police officer if the Moon doesn't have and affect on their work load around the full Moon due to some peoples tendancy to let their emotions get out of hand during that time. Since our body has about the same percentage of water as the earth, it stands to reason that we have cycles and tides similar to the earth as it is effected by Moon.

Ok, let me have it, I'm ready :-)

Percentage of water doesn't really enter in to it. Tides scale with the size of the body of water, since it's a differential force across some distance. Tidal forces in a human body are exceedingly small.

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-26, 07:38 PM
Percentage of water doesn't really enter in to it. Tides scale with the size of the body of water, since it's a differential force across some distance. Tidal forces in a human body are exceedingly small.

Whether it is the ratio or otherwise, there is no doubt there is something going on here. I can clearly feel a rise and fall throughout each day with my bodily fluids and emotional body. I have been tracking my cycles that follow the moon's 28 day cycle for the past 41 years (less the time of gestation and lactation). I have been fertile and conceived when my cycle was in tune with the Moon's cycle and infertile when it wasn't.

One thing I know for sure...there is much we still don't understand and have yet to dicover. Another thing I know for sure...it didn't matter whether people believed the the Sun was the center, or the earth. The Sun still warmed us and gave us life regardless of what anyone believed.

hhEb09'1
2007-Feb-26, 08:19 PM
I have been fertile and conceived when my cycle was in tune with the Moon's cycle and infertile when it wasn't. I don't want to get personal, but if it comes down to some sort of mathematical relationship, what about your cycle was out of tune, when it was out of tune?

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-26, 08:51 PM
If you're asking why was it out of tune...one time was because I had chemically interfered with the natural rhythm with birth control. After a year or so my cycles regulated, gradually moving back to alignment and I conceived. I have also watched the cycles gradually change when it wasn't a good time in my life to conceive, then gradually change back.

Gillianren
2007-Feb-26, 08:55 PM
So you didn't conceive when you were on birth control? It's a miracle!

Oh, and the fact is, when things are calculated instead of just relying on human memory, cops and doctors don't experience higher work loads at the full moon.

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-26, 09:39 PM
So you didn't conceive when you were on birth control? It's a miracle!

I guess I don't communicate as clearly as I thought, I'm sorry. I couldn't conceive for about a year after stopping birth control, even though I wanted to conceive because My cycles were off. They slowly came back into my normal and I conceived when my ovulation aligned with the 3rd quarter. That is my natural rhthym. Every person has their own unique cycle. Otherwise all babies would be born at the same time.


Oh, and the fact is, when things are calculated instead of just relying on human memory, cops and doctors don't experience higher work loads at the full moon.

I'd really like to see the statistics. Can you point me in the right direction? But then, my doctor and every other one 20 years ago said that ear infections weren't contagious and eggs are bad for cholesterol. I knew otherwise and now they do too.

Roy Batty
2007-Feb-26, 11:03 PM
Well here's one small study (http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/nsfall00/FinalArticles/THEREALFinal2.CriminalAct.html). I'm sure there are others that back this up.

Conclusions quoted from study linked to below (btw I didn't realise Americans spelt behaviour like they do colour before now ;)):

"Discussion & Conclusions


Apparently, through our research and analysis of data, we have found that there is no correlation between criminal activity and the lunar cycle, at least not in Oxford and Hamilton. We can assume that this trend would hold true if it was tested on a larger population. More thorough, encompassing studies could be conducted on different-sized populations in different cultures in a variety of environments in order to compare with and possibly support our findings. Our results actually mirror the results of studies completed by others before us, because other scientists have found that the lunar cycle does not affect aspects of behavior such as absenteeism, agitation among nursing home residents, or anxiety, depression, and manic behavior among humans. In retrospect, it would have been surprising to find a correlation between human behavior and the lunar cycle. The question of how human behavior is affected by the lunar cycle has been studied throughout history by humankind. Our project is simply another step in this same direction to attempt to achieve a better understanding of the relationship we have with the moon."

swansont
2007-Feb-26, 11:52 PM
Whether it is the ratio or otherwise, there is no doubt there is something going on here. I can clearly feel a rise and fall throughout each day with my bodily fluids and emotional body. I have been tracking my cycles that follow the moon's 28 day cycle for the past 41 years (less the time of gestation and lactation). I have been fertile and conceived when my cycle was in tune with the Moon's cycle and infertile when it wasn't.

One thing I know for sure...there is much we still don't understand and have yet to dicover. Another thing I know for sure...it didn't matter whether people believed the the Sun was the center, or the earth. The Sun still warmed us and gave us life regardless of what anyone believed.

Correlation is not the same as causality. The average length of a menstrual cycle is 28 days, but that doesn't mean the moon has any effect. All you can say is that you conceived when your cycle had the same duration or some particular phase. You have done nothing to test the cause.

But you can calculate the effect. For a 2m tall person, the acceleration difference is no more than ~35 micro-g's between your head and your toes, if you are standing up.

hhEb09'1
2007-Feb-27, 12:00 AM
The average length of a menstrual cycle is 28 days, but that doesn't mean the moon has any effect.Especially since the average length of the lunar cycle of phases is over 29 days. :)

trinitree88
2007-Feb-27, 12:39 AM
I visited the problem in the nineties, and at that time, the geophysics community seemed certain that there was no correlation. Do you have a reference to that work?

Of course, there should be a correlation, as tidal forces regularly stress the earth. Correlations with quakes and tides have been found on the moon, for instance. But the moon is almost dead tectonically, and that is the problem on earth. The quake production due to tectonic activity apparently swamps whatever correlation there might be with the tidal stress.

hhEb09'1 Didn't find a major link, but a minor one is....
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99048.htm

pete I do recall reading an article crediting a California high school teacher with the origination of the statistical correlation though, he's in good company,... John Dalton was a schoolteacher, and one of the stalwarts of spectroscopy....Balmer, Lyman, Brackett, Paschen, Pfund.

Gillianren
2007-Feb-27, 01:06 AM
I guess I don't communicate as clearly as I thought, I'm sorry. I couldn't conceive for about a year after stopping birth control, even though I wanted to conceive because My cycles were off. They slowly came back into my normal and I conceived when my ovulation aligned with the 3rd quarter. That is my natural rhthym. Every person has their own unique cycle. Otherwise all babies would be born at the same time.

Well, no. There are a lot of other factors to gestation besides date of conception. Health of the mother, health of the baby, stress levels of the mother, genetic history, etc. (Drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, are likely to cause premature babies, for example.) Even if the cycle of every single woman on Earth were synchronized, doctors and midwives would still be awakened in the middle of the night all month long.

And, yes, it can take time after going off birth control to get pregnant. Any clinician at Planned Parenthood could tell you that.

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-27, 11:32 AM
I guess I don't understand the "logic" used to collect unbiased facts in the scientific community. First of all in the study you linked, Roy (thank you), they started with a bias by only requesting the crimes from 4 days each month. This cuts out the chance that they may have seen something significant at any other time during the month. What if the number of crimes midway between each quarter was significantly lower than each quarter day. Yes, with one of the two towns data was collected from, they took the few days proceeding and following each quarter but it was a very small town and it doesn't sound like they did the same with the other since it doesn't say that town gave them more than what they asked for, 4 days each month. Right there the test is biased. It should have contained all the data to look for repeated patterns, an certainly not different data from each town.

Then they took out any crime that had alcohol involved. That is assuming the alcohol alone is the cause rather than allowing for the possibility that the blood is thinner and more easily moved as normal water, oceans or lakes are with the pull of the Moon. We all know, I'm sure, that alcohol decreases our inhibitions making it easier to act on pure raw animal instinct. Isn't that what this test is about?

Swansont, what would you like me to do to "test" the cause. Yes, the average woman's cycle is 28 days but each woman has their own natural cycle, some being 29, 30. And each has their own fertile time, that when healthy and unobstructed correlates to a certain time of the lunar phase, mine with the 3rd quarter. It just so happens that that is opposite of when I was born. I have also noticed with those few I know who set their own daily schedule of rising and setting (not real easy for most since school and job dictate the daily routine), when fairly healthy, tend to rise at the same time of day that they were born. If you could collect enough unbiased data, how would you test this? Wouldn't observation be valid?

hhEb, you're right, 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes. But that doesn't mean that the female cycle is not connected to the lunar cycle. I forget which species, but I remember reading the discovery that a certain sea life always progagates at a certain time in sync with the Moon in some way.

Gillianren, I'm not sure yet whether I am not communicating clearly or you are purposely misunderstanding me based on you own bias. We must have open minds here to have open ears. Again, I apologize if i talk funny. I was referring to cycles of fertility and the fact that each person has their own normal. I was not making an issue of the fact that I couldn't conceive after coming off the pill. My point was, even though I was still following MY normal 28 day cycle, I could't conceive until that cycle once again put my fertile quarter at the 3rd quarter of the Moon, actually, I think it is 1 or two days before 3rd quarter, I'd have to check my notes.

During the days of my greenhouse propagation I originally just sowed seeds according to when I wanted them to sell, not taking into account the lunar phase. When I learned about planting according to type of plant and phase of Moon, my germination rate increased to probably 95-99%. I was blown away. I had to be more sparing in the seed I sowed because I way over produced. Annuals germinate best during 1st and 2nd quarter, perennials and biennials during 3rd quarter. And of course, sowing when Moon is transiting water signs makes a big difference. I also found that when we mow the lawn during the 4th quarter, Moon in fire sign, we mow maybe only every 3-4 weeks. Yes, I know, rainfall will have an influence too, and fertilizer, so don't even go there. I kept this in mind as I observed.

Oh, and just so you know, they say smoking causes low birth weight too. I have smoked through 7 pregnancies and each baby just got bigger and bigger, even though my body is designed for smaller than average. During the pregnancies that I wasn't under undue stress in any way and the doctor didn't interfer I delivered within a week of due.

Gillianren
2007-Feb-27, 12:59 PM
Gillianren, I'm not sure yet whether I am not communicating clearly or you are purposely misunderstanding me based on you own bias. We must have open minds here to have open ears. Again, I apologize if i talk funny. I was referring to cycles of fertility and the fact that each person has their own normal. I was not making an issue of the fact that I couldn't conceive after coming off the pill. My point was, even though I was still following MY normal 28 day cycle, I could't conceive until that cycle once again put my fertile quarter at the 3rd quarter of the Moon, actually, I think it is 1 or two days before 3rd quarter, I'd have to check my notes.

No, you're saying you didn't. You are then making the assumption that it means you couldn't, despite the fact that a lot of women take time to conceive after coming off the Pill, regardless of when their cycle is. I personally have never been on the Pill, due to my bad memory about taking pills at the same time every day. (Other people are more likely to remember that I should take my meds!)

The fact remains that you said that, if all women had the same cycle, all births would happen at the same time, and that simply isn't true. Too many factors, including external ones, control gestation. Heck, my mother had all three of us C-section. (Narrow pelvic opening.) If there were some reason all women normally had their babies during the same week or so, I'd schedule planned C-sections for those other times, simply to lighten my load a little.


Oh, and just so you know, they say smoking causes low birth weight too. I have smoked through 7 pregnancies and each baby just got bigger and bigger, even though my body is designed for smaller than average. During the pregnancies that I wasn't under undue stress in any way and the doctor didn't interfer I delivered within a week of due.

It does. You got lucky. More importantly, so did your children. I hope they'll have more sense than to gamble with the lives of their children.

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-27, 02:11 PM
You are then making the assumption that it means you couldn't, despite the fact that a lot of women take time to conceive after coming off the Pill, regardless of when their cycle is.

Ohhh, but what determines when they can again conceive a viable fetus? One will conceive within a month or two, even while on the pill and another takes a year, actively seeking conception. If you don't keep an open mind to all the possibilities, you will miss your eureka moment.


It does. You got lucky. More importantly, so did your children. I hope they'll have more sense than to gamble with the lives of their children.

Luck sounds REAL scientific. How do we go about testing luck? Strange thing is, all the people I know with chronic lung conditions don't smoke. One smoked 30 years before the onset of the problem. I do know one who smoked and died from lung cancer. She had an injury at work that cut into the main artery that feeds the top of that lung. Within 6 months she developed a tumor at that site. She was ready to check out anyway so let it takes its course.

swansont
2007-Feb-27, 04:20 PM
Swansont, what would you like me to do to "test" the cause. Yes, the average woman's cycle is 28 days but each woman has their own natural cycle, some being 29, 30. And each has their own fertile time, that when healthy and unobstructed correlates to a certain time of the lunar phase, mine with the 3rd quarter. It just so happens that that is opposite of when I was born. I have also noticed with those few I know who set their own daily schedule of rising and setting (not real easy for most since school and job dictate the daily routine), when fairly healthy, tend to rise at the same time of day that they were born. If you could collect enough unbiased data, how would you test this? Wouldn't observation be valid?

hhEb, you're right, 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes. But that doesn't mean that the female cycle is not connected to the lunar cycle. I forget which species, but I remember reading the discovery that a certain sea life always progagates at a certain time in sync with the Moon in some way.


Actually, hhEb09'1 very succinctly clarified the problem here. If women have cycles of different lengths, then they are not tied to the moon (in any straightforward way, like gravity). Being asynchronous is evidence against that.

And synchronous behavior does not mean gravitationally linked. I can easily see how a particular species might be more likely to behave e.g. in a way tied to the light provided by a full moon or the dark guranteed by a new moon. So even demonstrating synchronization is insufficient. In this case, showing that lights from other sources disrupting mating would demonstrate that particular link. I have a vague recollection that some sea turtles have shown this.

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-27, 05:19 PM
Why would they have to be have to be exactly the same length to be tied to the lunar cycles? And why does it have to be absolutely straightforward? It sounds like, from what I've read, that there is still a lot not understood about gravity and other areas of physics. So why is it impossible that there just isn't enough understood by the scientific community to see the connections I am speaking of. Perhaps, if there was more open minded research, more would be discovered.

swansont
2007-Feb-27, 06:46 PM
Why would they have to be have to be exactly the same length to be tied to the lunar cycles? And why does it have to be absolutely straightforward? It sounds like, from what I've read, that there is still a lot not understood about gravity and other areas of physics. So why is it impossible that there just isn't enough understood by the scientific community to see the connections I am speaking of. Perhaps, if there was more open minded research, more would be discovered.

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. If it depends on the location of the moon, due to the gravity vector, then this will change from month to month if the frequencies differ. If there is a linear (i.e. straigtforward) mechanism, the it wiould require that the moon be in the same location, i.e. in phase, which is the definition of synchronous.

And even without that objection, you'd still need a mechanism. If it's gravity, can you simulate fertility by driving somewhere, where the local g is different?

Anyway, it's your contention, so the burden of proof would be upon you to provide evidence (for which anecdotes do not qualify) to support the notion.

Gillianren
2007-Feb-27, 08:14 PM
Why would they have to be have to be exactly the same length to be tied to the lunar cycles?

Are you kidding?

In case you're not, because the lunar cycle is exactly the same length. (Well, for a given definition. Certainly to any noticeable extent.) No matter where you are. For hundreds of years. Exactly the same length. Whereas quite a lot of women don't even have regular cycles. Of those who do (admittedly the majority), very few have cycles that are the same length as that of the Moon, so they're shifting along the lunar cycle all the time. The average woman, in fact, has a cycle that's about a day shorter than that of the Moon, so that means it only takes a little over a year for it to go from synchronizing with the full Moon to synchronizing with the new Moon.

If you're imposing your own beliefs on a thing, you don't have an open mind, whether it's because you believe in the thing or because you don't.

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-27, 11:39 PM
Gillianren, I'm sorry you're having such a hard time understanding what I am saying. I am not imposing my beliefs on anything or any one. I am simply sharing my observation over many years. Since I have spent most of my life without artificial interference I have been able to observe a very healthy individual throughout many varied circumstances. It doesn't matter that I have a cycle that is slightly shorter than the Moons. I still do not conceive unless my fertile time is within a day or two of the 3rd quarter. All it takes is a cycle or two that is 26 or 30 days to shift it back into alignment. Child birth or the cessation of breastfeeding would inevitably alter my cycles but they would vary by a day or so until they again lined up with my normal for conception. In fact during the time that my cycles were exactly 28 days my children were spaced 3 and 5 years apart. And don't forget there is more than 1 hour to conceive. In fact, with one child I spit out a second ovum 2 days after the first and conceived unexpectedly. During times I was under incredible stress they would shift. And I never got pregnant until they returned to my normal time. When my 1st marriage got close to dissolving they shifted drastically and gradually returned to normal when I remarried. I became aware of this when I started graphing my cycles to see what the visual looked like with the New and Full Moon's included. I would have to get my medical records for a few of my kids but the ones I had notes of conception are exactly what I said, conceived at the 3rd quarter. I'm 52 and have 7 sons, by the way. So I've done a little observing.

Now, I don't know what else I can say to explain this any more fully. If you're dead set against any possibility that there is something to what I am saying I'm wasting my breath trying to make it more clear. So I assume this conversation is over.

Swansont, would it be considered evidence if I gathered my medical records for the missing information along with what charting of my cycles I've done. Probably not since I don't have all of the years cycles. But it would show when I conceived which could be compared to the lunar cycle.

Could you explain "If it depends on the location of the moon, due to the gravity vector, then this will change from month to month if the frequencies differ." I'm not sure what you mean by frequencies. Did I explain it in what I said to Gillianren? I'm not really out to prove anything. I just though this was an interesting observation. And observation is the beginning of discovery, isn't it?

Gillianren
2007-Feb-28, 12:20 AM
But the only person you have information about is you. You cannot extrapolate that onto an entire population, which you're clearly doing here. Now, I don't track my cycle, in part because I spend an awful lot of time on Depo-Provera and therefore without one, but do you have a reason to believe that your own presumed experiences can be applied to every woman in the world ever? Or are you just picking data that you believe fits your already-determined premise?

I'm still not sure why you think a 28-day cycle will stay aligned with one that's slightly over 29 days.

Sp1ke
2007-Feb-28, 12:35 AM
I still do not conceive unless my fertile time is within a day or two of the 3rd quarter.

This sounds like it's based on quite a small sample! Even if you've got ten children, what are the odds that they were all conceived round about the 3rd quarter just by chance? Unless there is some statistical significance, it's just speculation and anecdotes.

pghnative
2007-Feb-28, 12:48 AM
There's also the issue that other mammals have menstrual cycles that differ greatly from ~29 days.

AquarianEssence, do you think that this lunar gravity effect works only on humans? Do you think humans are in some way "special", among the other animals?

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-28, 02:14 AM
Spike, I'm sure there must be quite a number of discoveries that began with just such a small observation as mine, with one seeking the answer as to why.

Pghnative, of course I don't consider us special in that way, only different. Our life span is different also. That doesn't mean that we don't interact with nature in similar ways as they. And I'm sure if we currently understood all there is to understand we would see the beautiful harmony and rhythm in nature among all species. Why is one species of plant an annual and another a perennial? How do we know that? How did we discover what makes them set seed when they do? Simple observation, then testing and proving. And what if the issue isn't simple gravity as we know it? I never said it was, those here did. I am simply stating an observation.

hhEb09'1
2007-Feb-28, 09:54 AM
hhEb09'1 Didn't find a major link, but a minor one is....
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99048.htmThat link does not even address the individual research that you mentioned earlier. You say a school teacher did it? But you cannot find mention of it on the web? I'm suspicious.

But that link there is pretty incredible too. It's an Ask The Scientist site, and the responder mentions a predominance of earthquakes in the morning, in California, and goes on to speculate that it must be related to the tides. But tides usually don't occur at the same time of day every day!


hhEb, you're right, 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes. But that doesn't mean that the female cycle is not connected to the lunar cycle. I forget which species, but I remember reading the discovery that a certain sea life always progagates at a certain time in sync with the Moon in some way.
There are thousands of examples of rhythmic patterns in life, they've been studied extensively, even the one that you are suggesting.

In case you're not, because the lunar cycle is exactly the same length. (Well, for a given definition. Certainly to any noticeable extent.) No matter where you are. For hundreds of years. Exactly the same length. The average lunar cycle has been the same length. :)

swansont
2007-Feb-28, 11:50 AM
Swansont, would it be considered evidence if I gathered my medical records for the missing information along with what charting of my cycles I've done. Probably not since I don't have all of the years cycles. But it would show when I conceived which could be compared to the lunar cycle.

Could you explain "If it depends on the location of the moon, due to the gravity vector, then this will change from month to month if the frequencies differ." I'm not sure what you mean by frequencies. Did I explain it in what I said to Gillianren? I'm not really out to prove anything. I just though this was an interesting observation. And observation is the beginning of discovery, isn't it?

The moon isn't in the same place at the same time every day. If the effect is due to gravity, the direction of the effect will be different at a given point in the woman's cycle from one cycle to the next. Basically, things don't line up if the two phenomena have different frequencies. But you seem to be implying that fertility depends on the phase of the moon, which is not necessarily implying a gravitational effect. The main problem is, as Gillianren already said, you are extrapolating from your own experience, which is an extremely limited data set, and applying preconceived (as it were) notions. That's contrary to the way science typically proceeds; you have to look at a large amount of data, in a way that could falsify your hypothesis if it's wrong.

pghnative
2007-Feb-28, 04:38 PM
There is also the possibility that you've conciously (or subconciously) eliminated the possibility of conceiving on dates other than near 3rd quarter. Um....but perhaps we shouldn't go there...

Even if you've got ten children, what are the odds that they were all conceived round about the 3rd quarter just by chance?Since you are either unable, or unwilling, to calculate this, I'll help. Even with 10 kids, there is ~ 1 chance in 50 million that all are conceived within 2 days of 3rd quarter moon. Sounds unlikely, but it does mean that you'd expect a couple women in the US to have that correlation, even if they'd all had 10 kids.
Reduce the number of children to the average of ~ 2, and the chances are 1 in ~ 35. Now you'd expect millions of women in the US to have that correlation, even if it was solely due to chance. Do you now see why we don't consider your anecdotal story to be evidence of anything?

Pghnative, of course I don't consider us special in that way, only different. Let me rephrase my question. Do you consider the menstrual cycles of other mammals (which are not = ~ 28 days) to be evidence that your hypothesis is wrong?

Why is one species of plant an annual and another a perennial? I would guess that it is because the ability to reproduce has been bred out of annuals by humans who were selecting for other traits. But I'm just speculating.
How did we discover what makes them set seed when they do? Simple observation, then testing and proving. Exactly, though you've skipped a few steps.
1)First there is observation,
2)then there is a hypothesis,
3)then you learn whether some data is already available to support or not support the hypothesis,
4)then you test and either
5)support or disprove the hypothesis.
You've done steps one and two, but you are ignoring step 3.

And what if the issue isn't simple gravity as we know it? I never said it was, those here did. I am simply stating an observation.Please progress to step 3 and listen to the evidence that we're presenting to you.

AquarianEssence
2007-Feb-28, 07:16 PM
pghnative I didn't even become aware of this until a few years ago when I decided to graph all this while cleaning out old calendars. After learning what I did about propagating with the Moon's phases I wanted to see if there was any pattern. That prompted looking at conception times. So, no, I didn't want to conceive at a certain time, conscious or unconscious. I just did.

I am not ignoring anything any of you are saying. I haven't seen any data to support or disprove what I am saying. I never said it was due simply to gravity, at least what we know about gravity, and does seem to be linked to the phase. I'll do a little asking around and see what I come up with. There are a couple of forums I frequent with a lot of women. I wasn't trying to prove anything here, just sharing my observations. But I am only becoming more convinced it is significant.

Swansont, as I said above, I'll see what data is out there to be collected. All I would need is women who know when conceptions took place. Maybe my midwife would like to help. She's been delivering babies for over 30 years and would have a lot of data. Now will you guys quit picking on me? I only wanted to share an interesting observation. I'm sure there are many great discoveries that came from little people like me. All it takes is one statement to trigger a thought in the mind of a great scientist to find the answers to the mysteries of life.