Is the Moon an unnaturally occurring object, and if so, what are the implications? #Yutu2

originally posted by: JimOberg
Some background on the Chinese target landing region, one of the most interesting scientific AND resource-utilization regions on the moon, as US scientists realized years ago ==
Aitken Basin mission, “Astronomy” magazine, Dec 2005
www.jamesoberg.com...

Why oh why did #NASA allow the #CNSA to get to the Aitken Basin first? and are the Chinese sharing all their data?!

The inside of the Moon laying around on the surface, and on the edges of that crater?

Makes one wonder if some jealous aliens aren't watching that little rover Yutu2 from the rim, wondering how long it will take us to figure it all out..

The moon should really be covered in probes, even drilling probes. Why isn't it, yet? WTH?

Big mistake letting the Chinese win this part of the race, which could be the most significant in all of human history.

a reply to: purplemer

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

~ Mathew 21:42

'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.'

~ Psalm 118:22

Could this represent an even more ancient reference to the Moon as cornerstone of our entire solar system which is itself embedded within the Milky Way Galaxy? Stone that was rejected by the builders... hmmm. That too would be a good one! In their face! Bragging rights! The Lord's doing (i.e.: NOT super-ancient aliens, albeit while "the morning stars may have shouted for joy & while the sons of God sang God's praises" - Job).

The ancient Egyptians referred to the Moon as the mother of the world.

Don't see why that knowledge and info would not have passed down to King David..

I'm aware that it's also a reference to the old temple construction, but the whole of ancient Jewish culture was intimately connected with the lunar cycle via their lunar calendar and isn't it interesting that Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, chose "Passover" on Nisan 14 on April 3rd, 33AD, to perform His Great Work of all Ages, when the Moon rose that evening already entering into the eclipse phase, as if hidden behind the horizon. Man did he ever punk them good! They'd be like "who's been running this show all along anyway?!"

www.bethlehemstar.com...

I call it a type of "cosmic theodolite" which was an ancient survey lens (magnify) used by the ancient Egyptians to measure true vertical & horizontal, in this case, as the true measure of a man, who alone can stand in the divided middle of the twin pillars of Justice and Mercy or Boaz and Jachin, like an opened doorway to heaven, with a blood red moon painted on its headjam.

I wonder if there are any Jewish Scholars who also happen to be Astrophysicists?

P.S. I find it also interesting the way in which Jesus' Great Work summed up and transcended the ancient Egyptian mythology, revolving around the death and resurrection of the sun at winter solstice.

Punk'd 'em all real good.

I think there's reason to celebrate and rejoice in the Lord!


Things that make ya go hmmm....

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

P.S. I find it also interesting the way in which Jesus' Great Work summed up and transcended the ancient Egyptian mythology, revolving around the death and resurrection of the sun at winter solstice.

But it is the summer solstice for the entirety of the Southern Hemisphere.

So does that mean that these religions are only valid in the Northern Hemisphere?

Not very inclusive.

If God exists and knows everything, would he/she not included the Southern Hemisphere to be all inclusive.

This is just one small problem with all religions, and bears truth that religious teachings are by men not a God.

Food for thought perhaps?

P

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

There isn't a good theory for the moon.
There's the double whack although the creator of that theory wasn't too confident in it.
She may have a better theory now.

I don't think the moon is unnatural however there's plenty of good reasons to believe it is.
Anyone claiming there isn't is being dishonest.

I'm happy to say I believe the scientists are wrong, but that doesn't make the whackjobs any more right.
The book "who built the moon" is interesting but to save everyone time the answer they come to is that humans went back in time to build the moon so that humans could evolve to go back in time and build the moon so that humans could....

All the answers are weak.
It's one of the few things that make the science folk nervous.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

There isn't a good theory for the moon.

Yes there is.

I don't think the moon is unnatural however there's plenty of good reasons to believe it is.

There is not a single good reason to believe the moon is artificial.

Anyone claiming there isn't is being dishonest.

Or they have a bit of brain capable of dismissing stupid ideas with no foundation in reality.

I'm happy to say I believe the scientists are wrong,

They'll be so disappointed.

but that doesn't make the whackjobs any more right.

Whackjobs whose theories you seem happy to subscribe to?

The book "who built the moon" is interesting but to save everyone time the answer they come to is that humans went back in time to build the moon so that humans could evolve to go back in time and build the moon so that humans could....

There's interesting and there's stupid. 'Who built the moon falls into the latter.

All the answers are weak.
It's one of the few things that make the science folk nervous.

No it doesn't. Interesting and thought provoking ideas make scientists excited. Stupid ones make them annoyed.

Whoooosh! Right over their heads! Oh well, I present for the reader, not simply the thread participants. Some of you get it, some of you "grok".

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: JimOberg

What you offered there represents a very false impression re: the shadow of the Earth.

Nope. The NASA drawing is oversimplified. Even with tapering, Earth's shadow at lunar distance is still about three lunar diameters, exactly as shown in my drawing. It is NOT the same size as the lunar disk.

ADD: Here's the proof. The moon's shadow tapers to essentilly zero at its distance from Earth, about 400,000km. The Earth's shadow, from an object four times larger, will taper to zero in about four times that distance, about 1,600,000km. Along that distance, the shadow diameter decreases linearly, so if it starts at about 13,000 km, a quarter of the way to the zero point it will decrease by a quarter, so it's about 9700km across at lunar distance. The moon's diameter is about 3200km. How much bigger is 9700 compared to 3200? You may use a calculator.


I'm presuming from your arrogant ignorance that you've never really looked at a lunar eclipse and noticed how shallow the edge of earth's shadow curved? Make a point of really observing it next time, and come back and report.

a reply to: JimOberg

I was just going by NASA's simulation, but we'll know soon enough when it's recorded live.

Part of being a good scientist, surely involves the ability to admit when one is wrong.

Remember, we were talking about the Earth also eclipsing the sun (same visible diameter) from the POV of the moon during a lunar eclipse, that's all.

It was you in your response, which was arrogant and a little rude and snarky to be honest, with that [grin].

But what perplexes me is you apparent desire to obscure and deflect from the truth about what I pointed out, so I checked into it, and it turns out that I was right and you were wrong. No biggie.

a reply to: pheonix358

If the signs surrounding the time of his birth (see the Star of Bethlehem video I posted earlier) weren't enough, or the schedule to that lunar eclipse on Nissan 14, April 3rd, 33AD doesn't surprise, then maybe it was the Northern Cross (also visible from region of Judea), which "lays down" in Winter and rises up in the Spring?

"Pick up your cross and follow me."

These things, and a certain coded thread of prophecy that winds through the old testament, were obviously used and intended, by design to "self recognize" by Jesus as the principal personified and as the Word made manifest. In fact, many of his arguments with the lawyers and Pharisees designed to shut them up made direct and indirect inference to these things. They knew full well about it and what and who it pointed to.

It's there.

I'm not talking here about religiosity or institutionalized religion or what I call "Churchianity" by modern Christendom, but a trail left behind in a couple of different places, so that we too might recognize (re cognize) the signature and the fingerprint of a Great Work, where it might be said that the height of Virtue, was/is power, restrained.

One cannot access any of this with an apriori bias, intact.

"There is a principal which serves as a bar against all information and proof against all arguments, and one that cannot fail to keep a man in a state of everlasting ignorance. That principal is called - contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer, Scientist.

P.S. Do you live in the Southern Hemisphere?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Re: "Who Built the Moon?". Just because their speculation at the end about "us" doing it from the future is stupid and violates the grandfather paradox, doesn't mean the data and info presented is all wrong by association with that ridiculous hypothesis.

They too had a strong bias against the idea of a super-intelligent design by a creator God, so that was the length to which they were prepared to go to evade the obvious. Sad.

What I like about it, this concept, is the idea that surely that same Creative Agency would have more tricks up their sleeve, which bodes very well for the prospect of finding an Earth-analog within our own galaxy, like something borrowed, something blue something old, something new, for a wedding, so to speak.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Yes, in Australia.

At the other end of the spectrum is this quote. I just made it. Borrowed heavily from a scientist by the name of Herbert Spencer

"There is a principal which serves as a bar against all information and proof against all arguments, and one that cannot fail to keep a man in a state of everlasting ignorance. That principal is called - religious indoctrination."

People have died for not believing one religion over another ... and the real stupid part is ... it is the same damn God!

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Just so long as we don't ASSUME with a prior bias of any kind when we take a close look in playing the tape back with the benefit of hindsight.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Agreed!

Hard as that is to actually do.

P

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

The maths is just too perfect. As I said the writing is on the wall for all to see.

This sums it up well.



Thank you for the OP.

Good thread

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

And no, I'm not crazy or schitzo. Just very curious, investigative and rationally and scientifically minded

If you are indeed scientifically minded you would know how the moon is formed and i'll put it in one simple sentence.

Late heavy bombardment, heavy collision, gravity, moon.

May I ask why did you link an article to universal topology which has nothing to do with the moon?

So you have absolute proof of this do you? I assume you do from the condescending tone. Please do link me to the info which states as fact that that is how the moon formed.

I think you need to do some more reading.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
.....

Remember, we were talking about the Earth also eclipsing the sun (same visible diameter) from the POV of the moon during a lunar eclipse, that's all.

It was you in your response, which was arrogant and a little rude and snarky to be honest, with that [grin].

......

You still don't seem to get it. Viewed from the moon when it eclipses the sun, the Earth is NOT the same apparent diameter as the Sun, it's several times wider. I tried to show you the math that proved that. Shall I mercilessly taunt you over again?

You've drawn a right vtriangle with sides SqRT[phi] and 1, and hypotenuse phi, so this means that

phi + 1 = phi squared

rearranging

phisquared -phi -1 = 0 and we can solve for phi
a = 1
b = -1
c = -1



phi = [1 +/- sqrt [1 + 4] ]/ 2