Past, Present and Future

[kandrathe]

And both what we've accepted and what we've rejected has come about through less faith and more understanding.

I would say that I have faith in our ability to understand.

[LavCat]

Dr Ray Stantz: Hey, Dean Yeager! Are you moving us to a better office on campus?
Dean Yeager: No, you're being moved off campus. The Board of Regents has decided to terminate your grant. You are to vacate these premises immediately.
Dr Ray Stantz: What?
Dr. Peter Venkman: This is preposterous. I demand an explanation.
Dean Yeager: This university will no longer continue any funding for any of your group's activities.
Dr. Peter Venkman: But the kids love us!
Dean Yeager: Doctor... Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!
Dr. Peter Venkman: I see.
Dean Yeager: And you have no place in this department, or this university.

-Jester

In a bizarre, unexplained coincidence I was just using that scene of the Ghostbusters Blu-ray to troubleshoot a mysterious sound problem in Windows 7. The Ghostbusters disc has Dolby TrueHD encoding.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?...ost3560088


Come to think of it, my whole Windows 7 experience has been paranormal.

[Jim]

Hi Pete,

Gratz !!! you Won the #100 reply contest to this thread.

What you won is in the quote box below

edit:

[kandrathe]

Bunk.

That about sums up your argument. I reserve the right to speculate and have an imagination about the possible. I certainly do not call my idle musing and speculation science, so you can get off the damn soap box. I've explained some of my reasoning for keeping an open mind to the possibility of quantum processes that may change our understanding of our capabilities. It must be hard to live in your reality where every box is square.

Gee-sh, It's like you got dumped by a psychic or something.

[Jester]

I reserve the right to speculate and have an imagination about the possible.

Me too. In fact, we're speculating about it right now. I have no problem with idle musings, or fanciful hypotheses, or what have you. So long as they remain that. But any suggestion that they are in fact real has as much weight with me as faeries, or unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster. Fun ideas, but not real.

I certainly do not call my idle musing and speculation science, so you can get off the damn soap box.

There are obviously people here who take these notions seriously, not just as "weird speculation hour", but as something that actually happens, something which should be studied as part of our world. I disagree strongly, and say why. That's kind of what we do here.

(Plus, seriously. How many hundred soapboxes have you got up on? We run a whole bloody soap factory here. Sauce for the gander, as they say.)

I've explained some of my reasoning for keeping an open mind to the possibility of quantum processes that may change our understanding of our capabilities.

Mmm hmm. And I'm waiting for someone to actually deliver the goods before I go beyond just idly thinking about it. I don't see how this is so much different from what you do, except that I look at the track record of these abilities and see a gigantic string of failures, rightly banished to obscurity, whereas you apparently see promising avenues of research ignored by "closed minded" scientists.

It must be hard to live in your reality where every box is square.

It's not really very hard to live in my reality. It just involves withholding belief until sufficient evidence is found. I don't find myself any the poorer for not being "open minded" (in your apparent sense) about unicorns, the survival of Elvis, or necromancy - why is this any different?

Gee-sh, It's like you got dumped by a psychic or something.

Do you have personal grudges against all the groups you rant and rail about? Because there sure are a lot of those, Mr. Kettle.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Do you have personal grudges against all the groups you rant and rail about? Because there sure are a lot of those, Mr. Kettle.

I don't date anymore!

[Lissa]

Hi,

I claim little knowledge and zero expertise in string theory, but isn't that what they're trying to do - come up with a coherent theory that explains gravity in a way consistent with quantum mechanics?

Not really, it's more like they are trying to explain quantum mechanics in a way that is more consistent with general relativity. Now, that might sound like hairsplitting, but the salient point is that they are starting from the premise that general relativity is right. That may be a poor assumption. While there may, indeed, be dark matter, dark energy is strictly an ad hoc assumption. A less wrong theory of gravity may explain one or both of those phenomena and be a better candidate to quantize (or even be a quantized theory from its inception). The irritating point is that the string theorist have taken over, and have blocked the funding, in most cases, of all non string research in that field -- but that's another rant.

I saw an article a couple years back that had come up with a plausible reason for how gravity works without the need for Dark Matter or Dark Energy. It was a very good read, but everyone is so hyped up on the whole "Dark" idea that no one will pay any serious attention to this theory that mathimatically dovetails into both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

I'm certainly not going to give up hope for subatomic physics, but we seem to have reached a point where most theories could only be tested by either prohibitively expensive methods, or simply ludicrous ones (particle colliders the size of galaxies...) Might it not be that we are reaching a kind of limit about probing down further in the universe, such that elegant, plausible models are all we can hope for, and testing their predictions is simply beyond us?

"Why use lead when gold will do?" Look at the history of the Cavendish Laboratory where they've been doing ground breaking research with "a spoon and a bit of fish-paste" for well over a century. Historically, as we've mastered technologies, their implementation has gotten more compact and has required less energy. I think that, as we expend more effort to understanding and exploiting what we know about the sub-atomic world, we will develop techniques that will let us examine that world without the need for huge machines. Right now, we are in the "when all you've got is a hammer, . . . " mode, and the researchers are asking for bigger hammers rather than exploring the possibility of other tools. Of course, that's the optimist in me speaking.

Well, in the area of subatomic particles, you really have to use a bigger hammer. If you look at high Z number atoms, you begin to see that their decay happens very quickly in numerous examples (Z = 108, 1 hour; Z = 113, 20 minutes). The only way to create these isotopes is to hammer them together by using various lower Z atoms. This means throwing various particle streams of say, Iron (Z = 26) at something like Lead (Z = 82) and hope they fuse (which requires a lot of energy). Likewise, due to the short half lifes of some quarks, it takes large amounts of energy just to try and create them from smashing large particles together (Higgs Bosun anyone?). In all cases, you have to overcome a certain binding energy and at the same time, the particles have to be moving with a certain Kinetic Energy to overcome the repulsion that like charges going to have. So, you really do need to go big to get the energy you need smash atoms and particles.

Or maybe there's a really nice, testable theory of quantum gravity that someone's going to cook up somewhere. I certainly hope so.

Me too. And, if it happens, I hope it gets published.

--Pete

As I noted above, someone has done it already, but too many people think "Dark" is the way to go cause "Dark" sounds sexy where this other theory doesn't. I'll see if I can dig up the theory, but I remember reading about it.

edit: Here we go, found the information. It's called TeVeS (Tensor-Vector-Scalar) and is based off of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). In essence, Newton was close with his Law of Gravity, but missed a couple things (pretty good for someone that came up with things in the 16th Century).

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well, in the area of subatomic particles, you really have to use a bigger hammer. . . . So, you really do need to go big to get the energy you need smash atoms and particles.

You do need a lot of energy to do the things you mention. I was not denying that. I was saying that the particle accelerator might not be the only way of getting to those energies. And if there is a better way, it will not require machines an AU in diameter. What is that better way? Hell, if I could answer that, I'd be working on my acceptance speech for the Nobel prize.

edit: Here we go, found the information. It's called TeVeS (Tensor-Vector-Scalar) and is based off of Modified Newtonian Dynamics MOND.

Thanks for the links. I've heard of both from Science News but haven't looked at them enough to have an opinion.

--Pete

[Taem]

I've explained some of my reasoning for keeping an open mind to the possibility of quantum processes that may change our understanding of our capabilities.

Mmm hmm. And I'm waiting for someone to actually deliver the goods before I go beyond just idly thinking about it. I don't see how this is so much different from what you do, except that I look at the track record of these abilities and see a gigantic string of failures, rightly banished to obscurity, whereas you apparently see promising avenues of research ignored by "closed minded" scientists.

It must be hard to live in your reality where every box is square.

It's not really very hard to live in my reality. It just involves withholding belief until sufficient evidence is found. I don't find myself any the poorer for not being "open minded" (in your apparent sense) about unicorns, the survival of Elvis, or necromancy - why is this any different?

Forgive me, I'm at work, so this will not be too elaborate.

I can't disagree with your facts Jester about precognitive abilities. I am not only skeptical about divination's of our future (such as Revelations from the New Testament), but believe that once are aware of our own future (assuming we could know it at all), then we would have the power to change it, rendering any foreknowledge of the future obsolete, or at least unprovable. I know the experiences I've had boarder on the "mystical" from someone in your shoes, and I myself don't give much, if any credence to psychics and seers, but nonetheless I cannot discount my many experiences. Believe me, they have saved my life.

Regardless, you opened up a whole other can of worms when you mentioned psychic power in a broad, general term. You see, I feel there is still much that has yet to be explained that has been proven and well documented, but not scientifically: for example, I work with many women at my facility, and there have been many times when they have all been mixed up, fired, and hired and we have an all new woman staff. Within several months, all of their menstrual cycles will synchronize. I have personally witnessed this occurrence three times now. This is a well known fact, yet scientifically, there is no proof because currently, there is no means of detecting this. Again (and I saw this on 20/20, Dateline, and 60-Minutes, as well as read two articles about it), when people yawn or laugh, there seems to be a radius where people in that radius are more apt to yawn or laugh themselves, even when looking down at their feet (the example on 20/20 was when the Pope yawned and everyone in the front row around him also yawned even though their heads were down and not aware that he had yawned). This also has not been proven with any device that can detect what is happening, but is accepted as some kind of innate human response. Finally, a few people in the world have a rare magnetic disorder, such as Liew Thow Lin or Miroslaw Magola, where magnetic objects stick to their body, and their bodies inexplicably let off a strong magnetic field - but again, science fails us.

Which bring me to my next point: The military used a man pre 1950 who could not only do remote viewing, but could snap pictures of the images he saw with some strange clicking sound in his nasal cavity. I have searched and searching the net this morning trying to find his name, but have failed. Anyways, to my knowledge it is well documented what he did and about his abilities. Uri Geller bent metal spoons on live television given to him from skeptical reporters. While many of his stunts have been disputed, the facts remain that he did this several times for skeptics in front of skeptics. There was also a man who could poke a yarn needle through his arm, then heal the would within 20-minutes. I forget his name and Google fails me yet again, but his exploits were also pretty well documented on national television and reported articles. Finally, we have water dowsing, which when the Russians did it with only the "best of the best" water dowsers, had a 68% success rate (I'm going to have to find that link on the net, but I just saw the show on Discover channel a few months ago and the number stuck with me), which according to the Discovery channel is better than devices that detect the water molecule in the air at parts per million.

So what the hell does all this have to do with time-travel? In my opinion it doesn't, other than to say there is more observable phenomenon in this world than our science has the capacity to fully document. Remember, it wasn't too long ago in terms of how long humans have been on the Earth that the world was flat! Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for science backing up and validating psychic claims 100%, but I'm just pointing out the obvious here: we don't know everything, and quite a bit of our own bodies is still a big mystery, even in our day and age.

[kandrathe]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for science backing up and validating psychic claims 100%, but I'm just pointing out the obvious here: we don't know everything, and quite a bit of our own bodies is still a big mystery, even in our day and age.

And... I'm just going back to Aristotle and Plato -- the fundamentals of metaphysics, in that there is actuality and potentiality. We have that which we know and can prove, and that which we don't know or cannot prove. I feel Jester places inordinate trust in the actuality, and no trust in the potentiality. Regardless of the fact that in the history of actuality, humanity has a pretty dismal record of failure. However, each failed theory is replaced with an even more elegant and complicated one that is supposed to now be the correct answer, even when it fails to adequately describe reality. I'm not as pessimistic as old Blaise Pascal when it comes to the failure of Reason, but I hold no more faith in Reason to explain the nature of reality than I would in science to explain Cosmology. Reason is a useful tool for ordering an irrational universe, just as Time is a useful idea for explaining how we experience it. To discuss possibilities one must move beyond what we perceive as realities, and make reasonable guesses into the realms of the unknowable. Rationalists might see this as senseless, as all unprovable theories may be correct (unicorns, elves, Spaghetti monsters, or Norse Gods). But, this is just monochromatic thinking. Discussing best guesses, may lead us to better theories, which may lead us to provable actualities. Which is a good thing for those who trust their senses. Me? I'm not sure our senses are very good at giving us an understanding of reality, meaning that our senses are very, very limited. Those among us who have made the greatest breakthroughs in furthering our understanding of reality have done so by pursuing theoretical mathematics, rather than physical experimentation. Experimentation has only partially verified what our mathematics has revealed.

When I'm talking about unexplained phenomena, it is not in the realm of some 1970's era ESP experiments where victims were forced to predict complicated symbols on decks of cards. I'm talking about shared phenomena, 1) The mind-body connection (placebo effect) where the body heals itself as if the cure were effective, 2) wide spread belief in intuition (what you describe), 3) similarity of near death experiences, 4) Deja-vu or glimpses of the future, and 5) shared experiences of spirits. I would grant that a majority of the history of paranormal experience is filled with cranks and hoaxes, but there are certain cases that defy a purely rational dismissal. I've seen magician David Blaine do amazing things, but I know they are slight of hand and explainable. But, there are some things people have experienced without an obvious charlatan behind them. I'm open to the possibility of the existence of an unknown charlatan as well. I just don't know for certain, and so I'm ready for a rational explanation (if one exists).

The nature of this thread is dealing with metaphysical potentiality, since we cannot conceive of an actuality where time travel is possible (or we'd be doing it). According to Aristotle, and Plato, for every effect there is a cause (reason).

Regardless of the hard materialist views of some here at the Lounge, I'm open minded enough to consider other voices on the nature of reality and consciousness such as David Chalmers of the Australian National University. I like to think outside the box, and I detest being bound by "what is known" (actuality). The problem of our age is that too often our higher education consists of being told what to think, rather than being taught how to think.

[Jester]

Let's see here...

RE: The McClintock effect. Remember, it was a "well-known fact" that hysteria was caused by womens' wombs moving around in their bodies. Just because a belief is popular, doesn't mean it's true. The test is science - and in this case, the science indicates it is a myth, caused by several biases, notably that we intuitively underestimate how close womens' periods should be (7 days apart, on average) and so are easily fooled.

RE: Yawning. The nature and prevalence of this effect is still disputed, but it requires no paranormal explanation. Humans have plenty of social reflexes, which act simply on the basis of our observations of those around us. That's not psychic in any sense.

RE: Magnetic man. This ability is neither magnetic (it works on wood, and plastic, and all sorts of stuff) nor mysterious. Your own link at wikipedia says explicitly that his body does *not* emit a peculiar magnetic field. Human bodies are sticky. With training and a little sweat, you can keep all sorts of stuff stuck to you. This is not an unexplained psychic power. Notice how he's kind of leaning back in all the various pictures? Hmmm...

RE: Remote viewing. I'll believe it when given a well-constructed test with positive results. As far as I am aware, every carefully controlled experiment on remote viewing (and there are a lot of them) has come up with bupkiss.

RE: Uri Geller. Ah, Uri. James Randi literally wrote the book on this guy. Sure, Uri Geller has performed his spoon-bending in front of skeptics. Any half-decent magician can. It's a simple slight of hand trick - just like all of Uri's supposed powers. Frankly, he's not even that good at his various overblown parlour tricks. They've been done much better my other conjurors, most of whom are arch-skeptics.

RE: Yarn needle guy. You mean this guy? I don't see anything about healing for him, though. Just some anatomical expertise and a hell of a lot of pain tolerance. Is there some other guy who heals?

RE: Dowsing. This also does not work. Scientific tests persistently show exactly what you would expect - chance results, no more, no less. No psychic powers here, just a lot of people who believe very strongly in something that doesn't work, confirming rather than trying to actually test their beliefs.

We don't know everything. We don't even know close to everything. But in the case of many of the things you've brought up, what we "know" is wrong - and it's science that helps us tell what is actually true from what only appears to be true. But even scientists can be fooled. We need vigilance and skepticism, always, or else we will spend our days fooled into believing in illusions.

-Jester

[Jester]

I'm talking about shared phenomena, 1) The mind-body connection (placebo effect) where the body heals itself as if the cure were effective

Nothing about the placebo effect requires a paranormal explanation. Mostly, it impacts subjective symptoms - pain, nausea, mood. These things are already under your brain's jurisdiction, and so it is unsurprising that your state of mind influences them. Beyond that, it is neither paranormal nor particularly surprising that the mind (which is, of course, simply another part of the body) has a role in healing - it has a role in almost everything we do.

2) wide spread belief in intuition (what you describe)

A widespread belief is not a truth. It could just indicate a very common, very convincing type of bias. That is almost certainly the case here, given the abject failure of all tests to demonstrate any precognition whatsoever. (Intuition, in the sense of a subconsious "thought", is a different matter, and is not paranormal, just part of the normal functioning of the brain.)

3) similarity of near death experiences

Why would this require a paranormal explanation of any kind? Surely, dying (or nearly dying) is a biological process like any other. Humans all respond similarly to almost everything, from heart attacks to poisoning to morphine - why would near-death experiences be any different? Surely, people undergoing the same process would be expected to have roughly similar experiences?

4) Deja-vu or glimpses of the future

It is unknown precisely what is involved with Deja Vu, but I don't think there is any reason to suppose it is anything but a perceptual effect, created by some anomaly in our system of recall. Perhaps it is a matter of perceptions being sent to the wrong part of the brain, or a memory of some similar, but not identical, situation. I myself find myself more overwhelmed by the feeling of deja vu than by any actual memory, suggesting to me that it is an anomalous state of perception or emotion, rather than an actual memory manifesting itself.

"Glimpses of the future", as best I can tell, do not happen. We are always *imagining* the future, because that is a powerful survival tool. (It may be our most powerful, and unique as humans.) When we imagine something happening a certain way, and it turns out that way, it is natural to feel prescient. But actually seeing the future? There is no evidence for this but anectodes, and those are plagued by the biases already discussed.

5) shared experiences of spirits.

Folie a deux is well known, as is mass hysteria. People experience all sorts of unreal things in ways which are convincing at the time. We are social creatures, and crowd mentality is very tough to overcome. People are primed, sometimes just by culture, other times by charlatans, to perceive spirits. With that being the case, convincing groups that they saw spirits is not so very difficult. Mediums have been running this gag for millennia.

I like to think outside the box, and I detest being bound by "what is known" (actuality). The problem of our age is that too often our higher education consists of being told what to think, rather than being taught how to think.

If you were taught that "how" to think was to hypothesize fancifully, unfettered by the evidence, then all I can say is, I'm glad that higher education runs in a rather different direction.

-Jester

[Taem]

We need vigilance and skepticism, always, or else we will spend our days fooled into believing in illusions.

Absolutely, else the world would still be flat and/or the cosmos would revolve around the Earth

However regarding the first two, I strongly disagree. One of the women was my wife, of whom had regular periods throughout the year until working for sears behind a cashier terminal with two other women who also had regular menstruation's within a day or two of each other after working together for a few months. When my wife began working with them, her period shifted 12 days to the center of each month instead of the end of each month, and the other ladies period cycle shifted a few days forward until they were all synchronized withing a few days of each other. And like I said before, this is not the first time I have observed this phenomenon. And about yawning, we both agree that it's a human reflex, yet my point being: we still don't know why with all our science. The rest I just threw out there from memory of things that struck me odd, but of course I cannot validate any of them myself. I'll try and find a link to the man who helped the military when I get home.

[kandrathe]

If you were taught that "how" to think was to hypothesize fancifully, unfettered by the evidence, then all I can say is, I'm glad that higher education runs in a rather different direction.

No. Of course not. Did I say that? No, I did not. Who was it that said, "We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course powerful muscles, but no personality." But, am I willing to hypothesize fancifully? Maybe... Like this guy does. I would rather have 100 fanciful hypothesis crushed by contrary evidence, than struggle my whole life to attempt a single "pure" thought. Or, to put in another way... "What you can do, or dream you can do, begin it; boldness has genius, power and magic in it"

Actually, how can one think at all "unfettered by evidence" of any kind? Perhaps a lunatic, but even so, a lunatic would be guided by chaotic visions of reality.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If you were taught that "how" to think was to hypothesize fancifully, unfettered by the evidence, then all I can say is, I'm glad that higher education runs in a rather different direction.

No. Of course not. Did I say that? No, I did not.

But one can infer that from what you do say. Indeed, even more than that, for you espouse concepts when all reliable evidence points to their falsehood. In the circles I've usually frequented, what you have is often referred to as a broken BS detector. That may not be all bad, there may have been cases where actual verifiable theories came from outside the mainstream fields of study, although I cannot think of any such cases offhand. But if many competent people waste their time pursuing crackpot theories, then it is a double loss, for their potential contribution to something useful is lost too.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

But one can infer that from what you do say. Indeed, even more than that, for you espouse concepts when all reliable evidence points to their falsehood.

Not really. I reject the notion that things not proven true are automatically false. I reject that idea of black and white thinking.

In the circles I've usually frequented, what you have is often referred to as a broken BS detector.

Actually, my BS detector works. I just use it as one tool in my kit. I also like to use my intuition, and my powers of creativity. Logic is one powerful tool, but it is not the only tool.

That may not be all bad, there may have been cases where actual verifiable theories came from outside the mainstream fields of study, although I cannot think of any such cases offhand. But if many competent people waste their time pursuing crackpot theories, then it is a double loss, for their potential contribution to something useful is lost too.

What I see is rather 100's of sheep all following the 1st sheep who chased down the same path, who all waste their lives bleating the same tired anthem. Each one entirely fearful of straying too far from the sacred theories, or risk being branded a heretic (e.g. in the case of Galileo, actually).

One thing I know about myself is that I am not a mathematical(ordered) thinker, at least not in the traditional sense I have of them as working out the proofs in a rigorous sequential manner. I have flashes of insight, and I work a problem in any manner of chaotic ways in which I can get progress, and then I sew them together with one final elegant solution. Once completed, then yes, I can regurgitate it back like a mathematician. Generally, as a problem solver, I'm much quicker than my peers, but my methods are much uglier, although the results are of the same or higher quality. In my world there are those like me, and the ordered thinkers. The open minded ones appreciate results, and ignore methods.

[Jester]

However regarding the first two, I strongly disagree. One of the women was my wife, of whom had regular periods throughout the year until working for sears behind a cashier terminal with two other women who also had regular menstruation's within a day or two of each other after working together for a few months. When my wife began working with them, her period shifted 12 days to the center of each month instead of the end of each month, and the other ladies period cycle shifted a few days forward until they were all synchronized withing a few days of each other.

Have you ever noticed that, when you're in line to turn at an intersection, that your turn signal falls in and out of sync with the turn signal ahead of you? All steady beats fall "in" and "out" of synchronization with one another. Womens' cycles are not exactly one month, nor are they the same as one anothers'. At any given time, about half of them will be "synchronizing" (getting closer together) and half will be doing the opposite. If three women work together for a long enough stretch, then their periods will converge eventually - this is a mathematical certainty.

If we're primed to find the hits (when they're getting closer together) and not the misses (when they're getting farther apart), then we're obviously going to conclude, just from anecdote and personal observation, that womens' cycles converge.

Now, perhaps this effect does exist. It's not impossible. Given the way hormones work (at least some of them), it's plausible that there is some olfactory element that causes synchronization. However, the tests that have been run on this suggest that this is not the case. Since it is very easy for humans to fall into intuitive-but-wrong theories based on these kind of observational biases, I know where I stand: this is a perceptual illusion. A convincing one, perhaps. But until I see a strong, carefully controlled study suggesting otherwise, I'm sticking with a negative here.

And like I said before, this is not the first time I have observed this phenomenon. And about yawning, we both agree that it's a human reflex, yet my point being: we still don't know why with all our science.

There are all sorts of things we don't know. We can either a) admit we don't know, but search for the most plausible explanations and test them rigorously, or b) try throwing implausible, fanciful ideas at it, fail to recognize our own biases, and be fooled.

I'll try and find a link to the man who helped the military when I get home.

To partially merge this with the movies thread, The Men who Stare at Goats was at least marginally interesting in parts.

It is fact that, at one time or another, the military, the CIA, law enforcement, and who knows who else, have experimented with remote viewing and other paranormal methods. Their experiences have overwhelmingly been negative, and they have pretty much abandoned their use as operationally useless. This may be because, as Kandrathe suggests, these powers cannot be controlled or directed. Or it may be as I suggest, that this whole field of inquiry is fairy dust and unicorns.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Or it may be as I suggest, that this whole field of inquiry is fairy dust and unicorns.

I'm remote viewing you right now. Nice pants! Btw, fairy dust is very affordable these days. Also, just so you know, I see Einhorn all the time!!!

As for menstrual cycles correlating. I agree with Meat, and I've experienced it in situations where many females live together. Also, the situations I've seen the cycles remained synchronized and did not get out of phase, ever. It does happen, but I believe it has a natural explanation. Again, from a biologic perspective, it would make sense for a tribe to have this risky time synchronized rather than be lion bait all the time. More recent studies have found synchrony correlations when factors such as olfactory sensitivity and hygiene are included. That makes sense.

[Jester]

As for menstrual cycles correlating. I agree with Meat, and I've experienced it in situations where many females live together. Also, the situations I've seen the cycles remained synchronized and did not get out of phase, ever. It does happen, but I believe it has a natural explanation. Again, from a biologic perspective, it would make sense for a tribe to have this risky time synchronized rather than be lion bait all the time. More recent studies have found synchrony correlations when factors such as olfactory sensitivity and hygiene are included. That makes sense.

The existence of Menstrual Synchrony is debated, as are most aspects of it. I fall on the side of it being a result of methodological biases, rather than an actual phenomenon. However, there is obviously a reasonable debate (apparently mostly from the 1998-2002 era) about it, and I can only speculate who's right and who's wrong.

However, in any case, it has no paranormal aspect, and our lack of understanding about it is simply a case of insufficient study, not any particularly mysterious phenomenon.

I will point out that the study failed to demonstrate any correlation with smell, although they did apparently find a correlation with hygene. Whether this is a real effect, or some artefact of the data, I have no idea.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

However, in any case, it has no paranormal aspect, and our lack of understanding about it is simply a case of insufficient study, not any particularly mysterious phenomenon.

Agreed, although I still find women to be a phenomena that I rarely understand.