JackBlack, literally in results of group 1 vs group 2
You seemed to make quite a big emphasis on the number of rows in your opening post, rather than its thickness.
And you shows no significant difference there.
With your thickness data, it seems everything is significantly different to everything else, with the exception of groups 4 and 5.
For your data to actually support damage from the moon it should be the case of set 1 and 3 being different to the others, with no differences between the others.
Looking at more of your results, a big problem I find with that is that while you have 3 decimal places you do not use them for the vast majority of results. Why is that? Then you only declare 2 values to not be statistically significant if they are identical, with the exception of temperature, where you do use the extra decimal places.
I have yet to see any evidence provided.
It is quite easy to not see it when you ignore it.
No I read the original study.
Which still makes no link to the moonlight and it indicates they tried to exclude the effects of moonlight.
We attempted to exclude confounders such as increased light at night, potential bias in perception regarding a lunar influence on sleep, and temporal information about the 24 hr day
So where is the link to the harmful effects of moonlight?
Even looking at the data, it doesn't even directly link full moon to effect of sleep. Instead it links lunar phase with sleep, with several measures being comparable for full and new moon.
For example, with REM sleep latency you have the lowest values round 9 days from the full moon, and the highest values within 4 days or at 14 days, with the full moon being slightly higher.
Meanwhile if the effect was due to the moonlight magically penetrating the facility you would expect the most extreme difference to be between the new and full moon.
I would posit such a man is not knowledged if he has no knowledge of astronomy.
I wouldn't call the effect of moonlight on people as astronomy.
But I guess that means you postit that no FEer is knowledged.
Regardless, as there is no clear evidence of the effect of moonlight on people it isn't knowledge they are lacking but superstition.
Parasites are another easy to see proof of the moons dangers. When their hosts are weakened by the full moon, parasites are able to take advantage of this.
Again, where is the evidence?
Not just a difference in activity, but evidence that there is a weakening effect.
Again, how does this make sense at all? why are the hosts harmed, but not the parasite itself?
Man also tends to produce less melotonin and more serotonin during the full moon.
And during the day.
Light is an issue.
It seems the posters in this thread want to admit that moonlight affects animals behaviors, yet they don't want to concede the point that moonlight affects animals behaviors.
No, it seems posters in this thread want to admit that changes in light level can effect animal behaviour, and that this does not indicate that the light from the moon is harmful nor that it is fundamentally different from light from the sun.
Meanwhile, some posters in this thread want to claim that the moonlight harms creatures and makes them weak, but that it doesn't harm creatures and instead makes them strong.