DrP

The numinous one feels when staring at a beautiful moon is a real thing though. The question is whether that numinous can influence the brain and make you do something crazy. Tests seem to suggest not, but anecdotes are presented which support. SO - I would personally say that it looks like there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the full moon actually drives people mad (beyond those that were mad anyway), although it is known that a sense of awe can inspire people... and the moon can inspire awe.

Yea - I think String Junky probable hit the nail there... With regard to modern day craziness.. A large full moon can induce a certain amount of numinous in a person... people with an inspired awe from something can feel a little wowed out - this, imo, could lead to crazy behaviour, or at least the feeling of increased craziness.... that coupled with the extra light that enables extra activity as suggested above.

Cells formed in a different way... it is thought that they started from micelle like structures of short chains with an ionic head that formed micelles.. the molecules trapped inside the micelles were free to form their little colonies and cells continued to evolved from there. I'll try to find the documentary I saw about it recently and copy it here for you when I am at home.

I disagree - we are at the START of a new era - we have only been able to communicate with everyone on the planet simultaniously over the past few decades. Of course there is going to be unrest and squabbles as the world opens it's eyes to reality and throws off its superstitious past. People think it is the end of the world.... hopefully it is for these backward superstitions that have held the world back for hundreds of years. Time to move on. Expansion from here to the stars over the next few thousand years. Interesting transitional period imo.

I had a dream the other night where I looked at a news paper and kinda thought Theresa May was hot... Then someone told me that they have taken the best bits of all of her photo's and mashed them together so she looks her best in the papers. "They do the same with Donald Trump" the person said. The VERY next day there was a picture of Theresa May in the paper, smiling.... and I must say she did not look too bad at all! I had a moment of confusion then where my dream and reality were intertwined for a moment and I thought, for a split second, that the photo had been tampered with. lol

I once dreamed that a girl I dated said to me "please don't ask me to stop this" whilst laying next to me in her bed - It was vivid and I could even look and see what top she was wearing and how her hair fell across her face as she was looking at me lovingly. A few days later I went to visit her and we ended up going to her room... after a while, we were laying there and she looked at me and I was reminded of my dream (she was wearing the same top and hair) and she said those words exactly like in my dream. wow. I dreamed of another girl too and something similar happened... .... that being said - I had a very vivid dream about another girl I liked and got quite excited because I had liked her for ages - we went out for a drink and I was thinking "nice, this going the same way as my dream"... but alas.. that was one dream that did not come true in the end.... well, not beyond the drinks anyway - I was pretty sure I was on to a winner with her too... not sure how I blew it, lol.

If they come round asking for your money then tell them to take a hike. You won it fair and square according to the terms and conditions on the tickets right?

Update of objections from the BCF from their Spring 2017 magazine: 1 - Proposed ban based on study on rats from over 20 years ago 2 - At TiO2 concentration levels within the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) (10 and 50 mg/m3) there was no tumour formation even though the rats were in lung overdose 3 - Only at extremely high concentrations (250mg/m3), which far exceed the MTD, were tumours observed and were subsequently regarded as benign 4 - Inhalation of poorly soluble dusts in general can lead to lung overload and the formation of tumours in rats alone, this is not specific to TiO2 and is the same for any non soluble dust 5 - ECHA, OECD and the ECETOC (European Chemical Industry Ecology and Toxicology Centre) all observe that the results from lung overload studies in rats should not be transferred to humans 6 - They claim "Use of this data risks the whole validity of standardised chemical classification" Conclusions they draw: The study results are not relevant to humans The absence of risk is confirmed by many years of practical use in the vast range of applications and extensive worker epidemiological data The French proposal for classification and labelling of TiO2 is unjustified from a toxicological perspective Given the high cost of TiO2, paint companies have invested heavily in the search for alternatives with the conclusions that there are no alternatives that match the performance of TiO2 in paints and inks. The timeline for the RAC (Risk Assessment Committee) and their reviews is as follows: March - Initial meetings to set the scene June - Review of the scientific evidence September - Considering the impact on human health November - RAC will give their opinion If they decide it is non carcinogenic then no further action or classification is necessary. If the decide it IS then in 2018: (estimated timeline) June - Draft proposal reviewed by the REACH committee September - Inclusion of TiO2 in Annex VI and CLP regulation.

Downvoting a post isn't out of pettiness. it is so that young people and visitors to the site that might not really know much about science know that the general belief of the scientists on this site do not support your claims. If you are stating something as a fact that goes against tested theories the neg rep can give an indication to others that you might not actually know what you are talking about with respect to a particular subject and that what you have said should be taken with a pinch of sodium chloride. Would you have people eager to learn real things about science be fooled by someone putting forward a flat earth argument or a claim for a bogus perpetual motion machine? The red rep is there to let people know that we think the arguments are fatally flawed and that the person just isn't listening to respected experts in the field. I sometimes use it to express my disgust at rudeness and wilful ignorance too and I know others do the same.

I think the chirality of these evolving molecules can be influenced by clays. I read it recently and saw a documentary that shows that much of this early replication of chiral longer chain self replicating molecules were catalized by having the reactions taking place in the interstitial layers between the sheets of clay. It was all very plausible and I have seen chirality influenced first hand by seeing reactions taking place between the layers in graphite sheets. As has been said several times above - no one knows exactly what happened (yet) but we are getting closer to fully understanding it. The evolution of the first cell type structures from surfactant like materials is amazing... and plausibly credible.. although nothing can be written in stone as a theory yet from what I have read. I would be a fool to suggest that because I do not understand or can't explain it fully that the people who can up with these ideas (which they have tested to some extent) are wrong or deluded or are trying to deceive. I guess that until it is sorted and fully understood we will be continuously plagued by people that have their own unsupported 'theories' of creation. I personally have to be careful of not being a hypocrite here - I used to argue from the other perspective and used to be a creationist due to my (past) belief in a god. Therefore, I understand how people can be fooled by this - I felt pretty darn stupid really, but I forgive myself, I can see how it is easy to get locked into a belief system, especially when it is upheld and supported by the word of so many people.

Most likely it was a coincidence in the opinion of most here I would think. It could have been premonition, but seeing as this has never happened before outside of statistical expectancy, then I would expect it was an amazing coincidence. It does happen. It HAS to happen from time to time other wise it would not be statistical. A possible explanation would be that you have dreamt about it several times without remembering... but on that day you remembered it because of the real life event. It's just pareidolia imo. As I shared before - it has happened to me several times too.

Being fair fred, it is quite new. I would imagine that when people learnt about semi conductors and electron holes they might have though... "what's the point?".... Computers were promised to all and people thought "So what, who cares, who needs a computer..?"... and now almost everyone has one in their pocket... but it takes time, many decades even for the potential of something new to be realised.

Depends on the strength of the magnet!

"It's a Knockout"? That kept going well into the 70s/80s. There was "We are the Champions" too, but that was a kids thing and was between schools, not countries. The more I think about it, it could have been "It's a knockout" as they definitely had international events as well as local ones.

What chemicals do you have mixed together and what are their storage conditions? If we know something about what you have then we can comment on how to see if a reaction is taking place or not.... like look for bubbles, collect the gas and test it and the like. Monitor the colour, check for temperature change. Without knowing what you have and what you are trying to do it is difficult to comment.

No. What about re-incarnation?

Golf is my favorite sport to play.

It might explain it - but there are already plausible explanations for all of these things. Hypnosis is a real thing, so are UFOs. Bigfoot - probably not going by the presented evidence,I've seen reviewed. Telekinesis - no evidence it is even possible beyond undemonstratable claims and scenarios which can be explained in other ways. . Human levitation (and firewalking), explained and undemonstrated beyond what is possible within the laws of physics for a human body anyway. Then there are dome things we just can't explain. Lets try to find some common ground. Is there anything that you don't believe in? Like the tooth fairy or laser eyes for example? Or something that we both believe works, like the placebo effect? We can all say that these things are real or not real based on the evidence we have all seen right?.I get that a persons subjective reality might be the driving influence behind the placebo effect, although I'm not sure there are tests on that. We can go back to that other thread to talk about that one. The point I am making is, not everything is to do with subjective reality. We can actually test things that are the same for everyone whatever they believe and the results are always the same. We have to take each example one thing at a time and dissect it objectively to see if it is real or not. Somethings are not real, like the laser eyes. They are not real because 1, no one has ever reported using them or seeing them, 2 there is no part of the eye that generates the power for a laser, 3 I made it up a while back.....there are many other reasons. You see? No amount of arguing is going to make us believe in laser eyes unless you get shot with them or they get reported on the news as a surgical breakthough. If you hypnotise the whole world to really believe that laser eyes are possible and we all believed it suddenly, we still would not be able to shoot lasers from our eyes outside of our imaginations. (sorry for this deliberate strawman argument here, it has a purpose). One case at a time. Objective analysis. We can tick these off as known to be true, unknown if true or know to be untrue as far as reasonably possible for "UFOs, Digfoot, Human levitation, Miracles, Hypnosis, Observer effect, Telekinesis, Meaningful coincidences, and on and on and on" as you listed above. How subjective thinking effects any of them at all is an individual conversation for each imo. I think that subjective thinking and self belief could effect the outcome of a miracle request for example (by having a placebo effect), but it won't make a bigfoot pop into existence. I can't prove that the placebo effect is improved by believing harder and I can't remember if there is anything that suggests if it is true or not. It could be tested by doing trials on believing types and skeptics in another group maybe to see if there was a difference - there probably would be, although you couldn't tell the participants that the trial was taking place or it could further effect the out come. I don't know. IF by actually believing in something harder or truer actually had an increase on percentage of the positive results produced by a placebo, then on a homeopathic test you might see an increase in positive results from a test if the people who took part in it believed in it fully. So. Montagniers transfer of the homepathic magic through the air or however it is supposed to be done, should actually work, because the people at the other end of the line get the placebo effect. That doesn't give credence to the experiment any further than claiming that any homeopathic result is just a placebo effect. Yes, of course it works.... only in so far as homeopathy 'works'. Anything can work by placebo, it doesn't explain or prove the mechanism to be sound.

Why would I even entertain it as an idea? I could ask what you think about the kid who thinks he might be able to shoot lasers from his eyes... What do you say about him?

The truth will set you free. ;-)

QUOTE Raider.." Trying to defend evolution against religion is hard".. No it isn't really. I used to have the opposite problem as a Christian. In fact it's impossible to counter it when you look at the kind of evidence the laryngeal nerve in a giraffes neck provides. Regarding the kind of taunting with bananas about monkies - Maybe the response should be to educate them that we did not evolves from monkeys, but we share a common ancestor. If that still doesn't work you could just try the same line of argument they are using and ridicule them back about their backward beliefs and superstitions (although I doubt that will make you popular, lol).

I am not assuming he is a nut - I have a list of possibilities as to why he would make such claims. How would I talk about him if subjective reality were true? - well it isn't so I wouldn't. There has been nothing put forward to suggest there is - where do we draw the line? If someone turns up saying that if they concentrate hard enough they reckon they could shoot laser beams from their eyes, should we even give that credence? I can imagine dragons... and I do not believe they exist (beyond what we have in nature, sea creatures that look just like dragons and the like)... I can imagine them yes, but why would I draw upon that imagination to back up a totally different argument that has no connection. Science site yea? Why bring the guy up at all? It didn't add any weight to weight to your argument. If what he did was somehow proved, THEN that would be an argument in your favour as it would be an example of someone who was laughed out but turned out to be right. But he wasn't was he. There are then about a dozen other example you list (Like Bigfoot etc)... How many of them do you believe to be true and how many do you know to have been PROVEN untrue through research and testing... there are several on your list that I know to have been debunked before through independent testing, so why bring them into the discussion to support your argument? PS - just to clarify - One of the 'possibilities' regarding Montagnier on my list is that he was right and everyone else was wrong... it isn't impossible, but I do not believe it to be true. Just as it is possible that I am wrong about the kid who claims he can shoot lasers from his eyes... I suppose he could be telling the truth and I need to keep more of an open mind... but I have never met anyone who can shoot lasers from their eyes to this day and I 'know' as far as I can tell from what I have observed about reality that no-one can shoot lasers from their eyes by concentrating really, really hard. Why can't he do it under observation?

your first sentence "To Eise.... where I claimed that?" - valid reasonable question. (ANS - you claimed he was no fool or charlatan - if he made a bogus claim - what is he then? Also, why put it forward as an example if you don't believe it?) You second sentence "You commented based on.... stop jumping to conclusions". - totally superfluous, condescending and insulting. QUOTE"I said what Montagnier did, not what was true in reality" - if he didn't do it in 'reality' then he didn't do it at all now did he?

An observation of the positive effects on social behaviour. (I might have shared this before) I went to Amsterdam a good few years back with my brother. On the coach there were some 16 to 20 year olds that had been drinking on the ferry and were annoying everyone with their football hooligan style chanting and swearing and general yobbery on the coach. After 2 days in Amsterdam they were the last to be picked up and people started to comment when the bus stopped to get them that the peace was over and we'd have to put up with these yobs again for the drive home..... except when they boarded the bus they were pretty silent, except for a few polite nods, shy smiles and hellos to the old ladies on the bus as they made their way to the back of the bus where they spoke in whispers for the journey home, not making eye contact with anyone. This thoroughly amused everyone on the bus, who thought the transformation was amazing and very positive. Trouble at football matches in Holland when England play away?... not so much. lol.

Being fair Sensei, it is probably better to start off with some well know reactions and do stuff that is safe and planned and know than to do random stuff, as you pointed out, that is how people get killed or harmed. I have done things I shouldn't have as tests and experiments with unknown out comes. I have worked with chemicals though and know something about what precautions to take. Maybe I am over precautious, but that/s better than having an accident or getting unknowns on or in you imo.