One of the Most Haunting Questions: Who Built the Moon?

Given the degree of sacred geometry involved in the Earth-moon-sun configuration, and I've read this book and found it to be fascinating, I can no longer hold to the big whack or double whack theory for moon formation.

However, because it's made up mostly of Earth mantle material, and formed at around the same distance from the sun as the Earth - then I suspect very strongly, that if we could drill down to the core of the moon or somehow penetrate it with sensors, that we will some day discover at it's core the remnant of an astro-engineered object of some kind which will not be naturally occurring, whereby that object formed the seed of the moon, drawing off from the Earth just the right among of material and no more, at just the right distance from the Earth, to function as a type of seed for the evolution of life on Earth as we know it.

The moon isn't a spaceship and we did not build it for ourselves from the future (absurd), but it appears to function in these measurements as a type of sign or fingerprint of a creative agency.

I think the moon is like the cornerstone of our entire solar system if life on Earth, as we experience it, and as we observe it, including the nature of the Earth-moon-sun relationship and geometrical configuration, was intended or if the "sign" of the moon, in our face, was intended to be recognized.

Think of it like a seed, and a control point for a long range sustain evolutionary development including to the point of an observer who would notice all these "coincidences" and come to realize that it could only have resulted by an original intent which included the observer and the sign/fingerprint.

In this way the moon is like the last laugh of God at all atheists expense. That's the way I see it anyway.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork
Or it could have just fromed from an impact of another body with the Earth.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Sacred geometry?

The distance between the earth and moon is getting bigger. It's also not a perfect circle.

The distance between the sun and earth changes as it isn't a perfect circle.

The distance from the moon to the sun changes because the moon is rotating imperfectly around the earth which is rotating imperfectly around the sun.

That means that any "sacred geometry" goes out the window as the distances change.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Given the degree of sacred geometry involved in the Earth-moon-sun configuration, and I've read this book and found it to be fascinating, I can no longer hold to the big whack or double whack theory for moon formation.

However, because it's made up mostly of Earth mantle material, and formed at around the same distance from the sun as the Earth - then I suspect very strongly, that if we could drill down to the core of the moon or somehow penetrate it with sensors, that we will some day discover at it's core the remnant of an astro-engineered object of some kind which will not be naturally occurring, whereby that object formed the seed of the moon, drawing off from the Earth just the right among of material and no more, at just the right distance from the Earth, to function as a type of seed for the evolution of life on Earth as we know it.

The moon isn't a spaceship and we did not build it for ourselves from the future (absurd), but it appears to function in these measurements as a type of sign or fingerprint of a creative agency.

I think the moon is like the cornerstone of our entire solar system if life on Earth, as we experience it, and as we observe it, including the nature of the Earth-moon-sun relationship and geometrical configuration, was intended or if the "sign" of the moon, in our face, was intended to be recognized.

Think of it like a seed, and a control point for a long range sustain evolutionary development including to the point of an observer who would notice all these "coincidences" and come to realize that it could only have resulted by an original intent which included the observer and the sign/fingerprint.

In this way the moon is like the last laugh of God at all atheists expense. That's the way I see it anyway.

Any chance you could give the specifics of the "sacred geometry" that you claim for you "god did it" theory.

a reply to: purpleivan




www.goldennumber.net...

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Except the facts pointed out in my previous post where I explained the distances aren't constant.

Or did you purposely skip that because it blows the whole "sacred geometry" argument out the water?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

This messes up your sacred geometry schtick.

a reply to: TerryDon79

See this

www.goldennumber.net...

Also, the elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun results in the phenomenon of Solstice and Perihelion, that is responsible for the four seasons, while the Moon helps the Earth retain is angle on it's axis and prevents the Earth's rotation from slowing and gradually tidal locking with the sun, to retain our day/night cycle over a long range evolutionary trajectory. From what I've been able to gather, it's unusual for an inner planet to have such a high rate of rotation (365/orbit), but that the Moon, due to the 3 body dynamic, is largely responsible for this phenomenon of a sustained relatively speedy rotation.

It would appear that the Moon has been running a type of long-range evolutionary program in favor of life on Earth as we know it.

Furthermore, while the Moon was much closer to the Earth in ancient ancient history, and would have appeared 15X larger in the sky (if there was anyone around to observe it), it is only during the epoch when there are measuring observers to notice it, that the moon is precisely the same visible diameter as the sun resulting in the phenomenon of eclipse.

Setting aside the whacky title and conjecture about the cause, you guys really should read "Who Built the Moon"? It's utterly fascinating.

a reply to: Grimpachi

That was a little exaggerated, no?

This would be more accurate re: slight bulge

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Which has nothing to do with your pretend math that falls apart every time the moon, earth and sun aren't in exactly the right place.

Yeah, "sacred geometry" is bunk that only works when everything is lined up, but excuses made when it doesn't.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You didn't even take the time to review the information offered in your rush to be right.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I just checked your link and a simple google search screws the results up.

Site - radius of Earth = 6,378.10km
Actual radius of earth = 6378.137km (and that doesn't take into account that it changes slightly)

Site - radius of moon = 1,735.97km
Actual radius of moon = 1738.1km (again, it varies slightly)

Site - Earth + Moon = 8,114.07
Actual Earth + Moon = 8,116.237 (again, number varies due to earth and moon size changes)

So there's just 3 things wrong already.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: TerryDon79

You didn't even take the time to review the information offered in your rush to be right.

Because it's an argument made to fit by ignoring ACTUAL data.

of course its been artificially put in place. damn, how cool would it have been to see the machinery ie constuction 'trucks' do it. giant massive constuction trucks on earth are cool, imagine seeing the crew move that rock into place millions of years ago.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: TerryDon79
Also, the elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun results in the phenomenon of Solstice and Perihelion, that is responsible for the four seasons

The four seasons are the result of the Earth's axial tilt, not the elliptical orbit around the Sun.

while the Moon [...] prevents the Earth's rotation from slowing and gradually tidal locking with the sun, to retain our day/night cycle over a long range evolutionary trajectory.

Actually, the tidal interaction between the Earth and the Moon is slowing the Earth's rotation down. Day/night cycle on Earth used to be much shorter.

Furthermore, while the Moon was much closer to the Earth in ancient ancient history, and would have appeared 15X larger in the sky (if there was anyone around to observe it), it is only during the epoch when there are measuring observers to notice it, that the moon is precisely the same visible diameter as the sun resulting in the phenomenon of eclipse.

That's a purely subjective notion that doesn't mean anything. Besides, due to the elliptical orbit of the Moon around Earth, some of the eclipses are annular (when the Moon doesn't quite cover the Sun), and we also get supermoons when the Moon looks larger in the sky than usual.

In fact, on the eve of November 14, the Moon will appear up to 14 percent bigger than an average full moon.

originally posted by: wildespace

The four seasons are the result of the Earth's axial tilt, not the elliptical orbit around the Sun.

I'd mentioned axial tilt in that context just the previous sentence if I'm not mistaken, but is it not the result of both the axial tilt and the elliptical orbit, that we get the process of solstice and perihelion ie: the four seasons?

Edit to add: In talking about sacred geometry, I was referring as much to geometrical relationship between the three bodies, as much as I was to the orbital relationships.

You don't find it to be an unusual coincidence the fact that the sun and moon are the same visible diameter?

Trust me, read the book, it will blow your mind, and for any reasonable person I think that it will dispel the idea that a random impact by a mars-sized planetoid or a double whack, as is the prevailing view, is workable or plausible, no matter what the remaining alternative hypothesis might be that's capable of explaining it.

There are in fact a whole series of whole, round integers, in the relationship of the earth moon and sun, which would seem to defy the prevailing hypothesis for lunar formation, leading to something along the lines of the illustration at the bottom of the post I made at the top of this page.

Let's penetrate the core of moon somehow and find out - that's what I'd suggest, particularly if it might turn everything on it's head regarding our entire understanding of cosmic evolutionary history and the reason we are as we are and even how and WHY we're here.

People may say that life just evolved with what it found, but if there are elements of intelligent design which would disprove the idea of a random happenstance, fluke or coincidence, then the entire frame of reference is irrevocably altered, even if that means jettisoning a heavy bias in favor of a more atheistic view which MUST hold to the random fluke hypothesis.

I'm not trying to define God here, only to posit the notion that the moon isn't a naturally occurring object as it relates to the earth and sun and to the process of the evolution of life on earth and thus, we talking about some as yet unexplained creative agency, although given the larger cosmological context, I suppose there's little difference between superintelligent and all-powerful creative agency and God, except to say that the answer isn't "because aliens".

If I'm right that the moon represents a superintelligent life-seed of sorts, for the evolution of life on earth as we know it, then this would bode very well for the idea of other Earth-like planets in our own galaxy, but where such a thing can be done once, surely that same creative intelligent agent would have other such tricks up "his/her" sleeve.

Of once thing there can be no doubt. Without our single, giant moon, being where it is and doing what it does, we would not be having this conversation.

This then brings us logically to the very edge of the strong anthropic principal, where I've become convinced from reading "Who Built the Moon" and doing a little research, some of which I posted above, that the data utterly confounds the strong anthropic principal as well as the random fluke/coincidence hypothesis and raises the idea that when you look up at that Supermoon, the experience ought to be not simply "what is" but something of the farthest reaching significance and implications imaginable.

Just don't let your bias get in the way of reading the book or taking a look at this alternative viewpoint when the other one must be discarded in light of what is observed and measured, and perceived as such.

Best regards,

Ankh

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

You would recommend people read a book based on bad measurements and "well it's right......sometimes"?

I showed in a previous post, the measurements are wrong. The planets aren't some pretend magical number apart for the majority of the year.

Sacred geometry is nothing more than someone seeing a cause where one doesn't exist, writing a book and selling it.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: TerryDon79
Also, the elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun results in the phenomenon of Solstice and Perihelion, that is responsible for the four seasons

The four seasons are the result of the Earth's axial tilt, not the elliptical orbit around the Sun.

Right. It doesn't make sense to say that the elliptical orbit creates the seasons, because when it is winter in the Northern Hemisphere, it summer in the Southern Hemisphere, and vice-verse. So it is winter and summer at the same time when the Earth is closest to the Sun, and winter and summer at the same time when it is farthest from the Sun.

It is also both spring and autumn at the same time on Earth (twice): September through December is autumn in the Northern hemisphere, but September through December is spring in the Southern Hemisphere, and vice-versa.

By the way, the Earth's elliptical orbit brings it closest to the Sun in January -- which happens to be winter for the Northern Hemisphere. So half the planet is in winter when the Earth is closest to the Sun.

The Earth is farthest away from the Sun in July, so half the planet is in summer when the earth is farthest away from the Sun.

That's a purely subjective notion that doesn't mean anything. Besides, due to the elliptical orbit of the Moon around Earth, some of the eclipses are annular (when the Moon doesn't quite cover the Sun), and we also get supermoons when the Moon looks larger in the sky than usual.

In fact, on the eve of November 14, the Moon will appear up to 14 percent bigger than an average full moon.

Quite true. While the Moon sometimes appears to be the same size in the sky as the Sun appears to us, it more often appears slightly smaller or slightly larger than the Sun.

Sure, it's quite a coincidence that the moon is similar on average (but just similar) in apparent size to the Sun when seen from Earth, but a coincidence is all it is.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Except the facts pointed out in my previous post where I explained the distances aren't constant.

Or did you purposely skip that because it blows the whole "sacred geometry" argument out the water?

No there not that's why you get whats called a ring eclipse. Half the month the moon wont cover the sun but most people don't know that. roughly 14 days a month you can get a total eclipse. any other time you get a ring eclipse because the moon is just to far away to cover the entire sun. If someone planned it they really did a crappy job and didn't even understand the basics of even simple geometry much less orbital mechanics.