Velocity_Boy

No worries indeed, mate. I guess the only true way that the Lunar Effect could have ever been given some credence is is that if those who engaged in the wild behavior during the full moon phase could have been proven not to have known there was a full moon. As in, locked inside with no windows, and also no knowledge that there was a full moon that night. What at one time mildly intrigued me about that idea is that I actually once offered it to a psychiatric RN friend if mine, who worked at an inpatient psychiatric hospital. And she swore that that was indeed the case. Her patients on the locked ward she worked on didn't know. She claimed also to have been aware of the confirmation bias pitfall, so she actually documented the nights the moon was full and the attendant behavioral problems that occurred. Lastly, and then I promise to drop this topic...Lol...She said that, so persuasive were her resultant findings, supporting the validity of the Lunar Effect, that she planned to use them for her Master's thesis in Psych. Alas, I lost contact with her before that happened, if it ever did.

Hmm..I think they are. And if you think not, please explain? And I'm speaking of real world events. Ones that we experience ever day. Not hypothetical mental picture games like some guy riding on a beam of light. After all, you did say that events for me are not simultaneous for other observers. Thanks.

Sure, maybe. But I am if the opinion that preventative maintenance is the key here. To preventing type II diabetes, that is. Kids are contracting it in such fact numbers that it's not called what it used to be called.....Adult Onset Diabetes. So, how about education on nutrition? And plain old diet and exercise. Type II is so easily put into remission via that route. Why give Big Pharma more big bucks? I'm sick of them capitalizing on human maladies that are either psychosomatic, or blown way out of proportion by the media, or easily rectified ourselves. Just my dos centavos, amigo.

Hmm..But DO we truly know how the different genres of music effect our minds? I use the word mind here in lieu of your term brain, as I think it more accurate in this case. The mind being what comprises our emotions, while the brain is merely an organ. In any case, I'm not sure we do know. For instance, does everybody get the same emotional affect from Classical? Or heavy metal? I think maybe not. My wife says metal calms her. While some if not most people would say it Ramps them up, so to speak. Our past experiences with certain genres would definitely play a significant factor in this as well. What if a Bach violin concerto was playing when your kitchen caught fire? Would that piece then have the same calming effect on you later when you heard it as it does on many others with no such past connective experience? Again, I think not. So my illustrations here are probably in line with my answer to your basic query. Not all music effects us all in the same way. Further, since music is basically an art form and thus very subjective and personal, how you feel about a particular genre can not be objectively construed as good or bad or right or wrong. So...I think your premise is a no go from the gitgo. Sorry, probably not the answer you were hoping for. But in science we must first validate premises before we can begin to extract hypotheses from them. And in this instance I cannot come close to validating your basic premises.

Your understanding is perfectly correct. A throwing offense is simply one that relies heavily on its passing attack. Though, not exclusively of course. Even a throwing offense would run the ball at least a dozen times a game. And this running is usually done by a do called running back. They used to be called halfbacks and fullbacks, but not so much nowadays. And often there's only one running back on the field. Who, btw, usually catches passes also. Some QB's run intentionally, as in a called play. But this is fairly uncommon now. Usually when he runs its because he is chased from his passing pocket after he could not find an open receiver. To offer you a bit more on the NFL, that league has itself become a passing league. Never before in its almost 100 year history has passing been so prevalent. Used to be, a team could be successful with a mediocre or even poor passing game. If it's running game and defense were excellent. Such is no longer the case. An effective passing attack is required for success in the NFL. Period.

Wow. Long post, amigo. Sorry, but I had to stop after the part about that Super Brain having three possible conclusions as to the possibility of life after death. If this Brainiac was indeed was programmed with all possible available knowledge and input on the topic. I disagree vehemently. In such a case, only one possible answer could be arrived at by the Brain. And of course the answer is No. Not possible given all received data. It would also tell you that the very term life after death is contradictory. As the robot from Lost in Space would say....Does not compute! LOL There is absolutely no aspect of alleged experience reported by those who have undergone NDE that cannot be easily and completely explained by Neuroscience.

Not so fast. The full moon phenomenon is by no means pure hoakum. Have you not considered the psychosomatic affect? That is, some people see the full moon, are aware of the mythos regarding how it can cause people to act crazily, or outside the normal parameters of accepted behavior, so they subconsciously engage in just that sort of behavior. This, in an indirect way, the full moon is causing this type of behavior as mentioned in the OP. I've known cops and also psych nurses who swear by the validity of the Full Moon phenomenon. It's probably just a case of information bias on their part, but still, it prompts some interesting discussions among people in the mental health field. I myself am not a believer, except for the possibility of my aforementioned psychosomatic Dynamics. But still, I feel you were overly abrupt and dismissive, not to mention a tad rude, in sarcastically shutting down Koti....and with no offered explanation. Yeah, like I just told Antares, us men of science may not believe in the Full Moon effect, but there has been such a slew of interesting reports and observations of folks engaging in strange behavior during a full moon that I think the first response to your OP was pedantic and overly dismissive. Especially since many of the believers are mental health and law enforcement professionals. Then again this IS The SF. Where outside the box ideas are often dismissed in overly harsh and rapid manner. Witness the fact I'm quite sure I'll receive downvotes for this post. LOL. Thanks for your post. Being a Psych nerd I found it I interesting. http://www.livescience.com/1617-strange-happen-full-moon.html http://www.livescience.com/1617-strange-happen-full-moon.html http://www.livescience.com/1617-strange-happen-full-moon.html I'd go with confirmation bias bring the primary culprit. Those folks who believe just conveniently forget all the times there was a peaceful full moon night, as well as the non full moon nights that were filled with crazies!

Ironically I just came across this old article in a magazine a couple weeks ago. And I just found an online version of it. I think it speaks of this topic very accessible and interestingly. Seems we might finally be getting a handle on what gravity is really comprised of, instead of just having to rely on that old worn placeholder term "gravitrons." Which we really didn't even know what they were comprised of or why or how. Just like we are now with Dark Energy. No clue. Just know it's there. LOL Anyway...you might like this........... https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/measuring-gravity-have-we-finally-cracked-it

In my opinion, questioning the true nature of time offers us no discernible advantages or gains. Unless of course you're a theoretical physicist and that sort of stuff is what you do. But for the layman, well, for everybody, like it or not we humans here on this tiny 3rd rock are constrained (trapped?) into a state of time where it is purely linear. That is, time will progress during your life second by second by minute by hour by day........ To us, in the real world, time can never be nothing more than the passing of events. It's actually a continual "slide show" of the present moment. As they each snap in and out of existence. Neither the future nor the past even exist! Except in your own mind. Sure, all this stuff is fun to think about but I do not believe it offers an ounce of applicable value in the real and tangible physical world. Well, except in maybe the way we sometimes calm ourselves after doing something stupid or wrong by telling ourselves "Hey, in five years nobody will even remember this!" LOL Far more useful topics to dwell upon, I believe, or such things as the nature of Existence; or perhaps what constitutes sentience? Awareness? Or intelligence? Is there a soul? Is our entire "self", our personality, our "me" only a collection of chemicals and neurons firing back and forth inside the 3 lb. organ we call our "brain?" As the materialist neurologists tell us? To me, that stuff has some real-world value. But time? Not so much. Indeed, I equate much time travel pondering and such as not a lot more than mental masturbation.

From what I can discern from your examples, going back in time the way you describe above is simply "thinking" you're going back. Imagining it. Maybe even dreaming it. In other words: your physical body is going nowhere, and it's all in your head. Your example reminds me more of claims of "remote viewing" or astral projection than it does true time travel. And, both those phenomena have pretty much been discredited from being possible, as well. Though--please excuse me here if I am straying a wee bit off-topic--the U.S. Government and especially the Army DID spend an amazing amount of time and money exploring Remote Viewing. Some folks might not realize that the very funny movie "Men Who Stare at Goats" was based on many true events from the Army's Stargate Project. All that stuff about would-be "psychic warriors" was true and documented. As far as true physical Time Travel, where, say, you could project your real body to 1939 Nazi Berlin, my personal pet hypothesis on why it is impossible, totally, is that you would have to re-arrange the entire Galaxy--perhaps even the Universe--to the configuration it was in during the time you wish to travel to. This, in view of the fact that the earth, the solar system, and the galaxies, including our own Milky Way, are rotating and moving at speeds of tens of thousands of MPH. Thus the respective positions of all astral entities involved are far different now than they were 70 years ago. Hell, even a week ago!

Uh, no...that's a huge exaggeration, considering that the slightly smaller organ-to-body-size ration would be, percentage-wise, all but negligible. At least insofar as it being enough to cause a significant curtailing in the oxy-delivery mechanism at the cellular level. But after doing a little research on this whole matter I came across an online article published a few years ago in the UK. Here please find an interesting discovery at the genetic level........... "Short men will live longer than taller people because they are more likely to carry a gene that protects them from the effects of ageing, scientists have revealed. The so-called “longevity gene” FOXO3 has been proven to enhance lifespan in animal tests but has never before been linked to variations in height in humans. A new scientific study, the largest of its kind and involving more than 8,000 aging American-Japanese men in Hawaii, conclusively showed a direct connection between short height and long life. FOXO3, they found, leads to smaller body size during early development and a longer lifespan overall. Short men were also more likely to have lower blood insulin levels and less likely to get cancer. “This study shows, for the first time, that body size is linked to this gene,” said co-author and University of Hawaii professor Bradley Willcox. The scientists split their test subjects into two groups, those 5ft 2ins and shorter and those 5ft 4ins and taller, and found that there was a clear divide in how long each lived. There was also no clear cut-off point at which point being even taller stopped you living any shorter, or vice versa. Dr Willcox said: “The folks that were 5-2 and shorter lived the longest. The range was seen all the way across from being 5-foot tall to 6-foot tall. The taller you got, the shorter you lived.”

So be it. My answer to you would be the same as my OP. If Evolutionary Psych guys are thinking that we evolved to appreciate the merits and advantages of Altruistic behavior then even toddlers would be imbued with that same "hard wiring." And again, it also depends on their home environment. IOW: its both Nature and Nurture. As it is in most matters regarding human behavior. That said, though I would have offered my same answer had I know you were referring to toddlers, I might have given a more pertinent link. Like this one, perhaps? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3088085/

Cruelty is not the only thing that can foster hatred. And envy in and of itself is not really a problem. Not nearly as much as its ugly cousin, jealousy. And. Uh, is it me or did you accidently reverse your percentages in your final sentence there? Because the way it reads doesn't make sense. Or were you referring to some specific society in the past? As far as to whether or not those two kids will share....Who knows? You certainly cannot claim with any degree of accuracy that they surely will not share. It depends on their upbringing and previous environment. As far as greed being hardwired. Not so fast. Most psychologists in the area of Evolutionary Psychology have agreed that at some point in our distant past we homo sapiens discovered the benefits of altruistic behavior. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism

Yeah, the brain craves sugar and needs it more than any other organ. It'll use a good 1/5th of the sugar you eat while only comprising around 1/50th of your total body weight. Now then...On the topic of brains and sugar, I learned that whole idea about how little kids get ramped up after ingesting too much sugar is a myth. Repeated observations by impartial observers ..Not parents! ...Show us that little Johnny or Tabitha isn't affected behaviorally by guzzling a large coke and a bag of Twizzlers. Not to say we Americans don't eat too much sugar. I also learned that the average American gobbles....Get this...About 150 lbs. Of sugar every year. And guess how much we are of it back about 150 years ago? Three to five pounds. Or..About 1/40th of today's yearly average. So much for any needed further speculation as to sugar being a prime if not most pernicious culprit for our obesity epidemic, eh?

I think I know how you feel. You just received approval for your MS program from a school you like well enough...Probably the one where you took your Bachelor's? But you also applied to a couple other schools, and truth be told, you would really prefer to attend one of them if you have your druthers. But, alas, you've not heard from them as of yet. Same thing happened to me, and I waited for the one I wanted, and got it, but not in time to slide straight in the following semester after getting my BS. So I lost a full semester in time. Which really was no big deal to me anyway, and in fact it worked out better since I needed time to move. I now attend grad school in Texas after being an undergrad in Arizona. But I really wanted to come here, as I have family and friends. And actually grew up in Austin. If you're not as passionate about relocating, I would advise to employ the advice from the old adage that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

How about this source? http://www.my9nj.com/fox-content-hub/231038610-story Anytime a member of a species tried to abnormal height of weight, the chances of DNA damage increase simply because there are more cells in the organisms. Thus more chances for the DNA in any of those additional cells to be damaged. There are also disorders and diseases found in tall people that are exclusive to, well, tall people. Marfan Syndrome comes to mind. As does people with pituitary gland abnormalities. And of course talked people have a much increased chance of orthopedic problems. We need to remember that DNA damage by no means equates to having a disease or other noticeable affliction. Nor does it guarantee poor health. We all have a slew of damaged DNA chains in our bodies. And only a very tiny percentage of us will ever suffer from that of know about it. I also think it would be incredibly difficult to prove that over the years of human development and civilizations, that persons who are below the normal bright at their given era actually enjoyed greater longevity than their taller peers. There would be way too many factors that could be corrolary and not causal. Given all that, there is this...... http://www.my9nj.com/fox-content-hub/231038610-story

Let we you're correct as far as the mild toxicity of benzos making it extremely difficult to overdose fatally on from them alone. But yet, benzos are implicated in a high percentage of suicides. Both accidental and intentional. As when they're mixed with opioids and or alcohol. But with only benzos, the user will pass out before a fatal dose could be invested. People have died, btw, from benzo overdose. Usually from asphyxiation on their vomit. People are more likely to die from cardiac arrest, however, during benzo withdrawal, then from taking an overdose of them. There is a joke among hospital ER staff that the only way to od on benzos is to choke on the pills!

On a large scale you should be calling through that chair you're sitting in, given the fact that each of the gazillion atoms that combine to comprises it are 99% empty space. Yet...You sit. Just as. Yet....We are, in all probability...Pardon the pun..Still here.

The apple story is thought to be almost certainly apocryphal by most science historians. As far as Mssrs. Pythagoras, Faraday and Maxwell, they were without a doubt sublime scientists.....Some of Mr P's more mystical notions not notwithstanding. But I think that had those three not fathomed their respective momentous theories when they did, then, well, one of their colleagues would have do so within a matter of several years at most. IOW, twas just a matter of time. Not to say folks living during the times of those three men might not have been deprived, had they not made their momentous discoveries. They probably would have. But for those of us both in the middle to latter half of the 20th century, and later, our lives would be no different. The world today would be exactly the same insofar as it's knowledge and progress in the arenas of navigation and math and electrical engineering. We'd just have different names in our text and science books. I think Pythagoras was of the three the one who was most ahead of his time. And he'd be my luck if I had to choose one who would have left the biggest and longest running void had he not existed. I think colleagues of Maxwell and Faraday were pretty much hot on their heels.

Technically, you're missing the whole fricking point. But thanks for the pedantry.

Proof is that which serves as evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. Such as...."you will be asked to give proof of your identity" Some synonyms might be..verification, authentication, confirmation, or even.. validation,

I have the same software and headphones you do in my laptop. And even once had your same problem. What I did to rectify it.. ....right click on the sound control icon, I get Open Volume Mixer, Playback Devices, Recording Devices, Sounds, and Troubleshoot Sound Problems.

But your question as well as your claims are not philosophical ones. They belong squarely in the realm of paranormal and psuedo science. You'd do far better with them in another forum that specializes in those things. I even think there's a paranormal.com open forum. Hell, those guys over there won't even doubt your claims. And they'll give you the attention you want. This is simply just about the worst place for anybody to come with claims of precognition or ESP. You don't have to move the goalposts and defend your claims there as you attempted to do above. Trust me, mate, this is a tough audience. Hope this helps.

Just so you know, many Creationists are okay​ with the idea of evolution within a species. It's the whole microbe to fish to mammal to us deal that they refuse to consider. Thus, a fundie creationist is quite apt to accept the fact that microbes and viruses have evolved. They know about super bugs. I know this is how many of them are since I have several times used the black sooted moth as an argument for Selective inheritance. They were nonplussed and accepted it, just like Darwin's finches. Hey, those wackos have been doing this a long time, man. Perpetuating their mythos, so some of become quite adept at covering their bases. The last one I tried to debate with our museums filled with transitional fossils kept bringing up Piltdown Man, and so all those tran fossils were fakes! Ya almost gotta hand it to them, eh? LOL Yet, as I said before, I've been downvoted for petty reasons such as using valid science to refute time travel. Or offering an opinion that I found something interesting that the downvoted did not. So your claim that such votes only get cast for bad science is, all due respect, simply not true. You need to be careful about defending all downvotes and claiming them valid and objective. It's not the case.

I personally don't see anything paradoxical about the concept of Infinity. Well, except in an abstract way. In that, it is amazing how often the word is used and what a popular topic of discussion it is among us humans, given the fact that, in reality, our minds have no true grasp of it. That is, we cannot effectively comprehend anything being "infinite." It is a placeholder word. And how could we know? Given our amazingly brief time here, living in a world filled with finite entities; measured time; rules' constructs, and limits. During our evolution there was no reason for the brain to have to learn to grasp the notion of infinity. As, even to understand it, would do us little if any good. Far more valuable was our brain's evolved obsession with seeking patterns in the world. As well as causes. (Alas, the mind does this even when there are NO patterns or causes. So this is why: conspiracy theories; gods; Mother Mary in your morning toast, and the Man in the Moon! LOL)