It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


THE biggest and most mind-bending coincidence on Earth!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by Azgard123

Your sources (or should I say source) are incorrect. Since you didn't think it necessary, I will provide a link to your source. This little essay pops up all over the place and is mostly nonsense.

Unlike you, I find my own sources and provide them.


The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor.

2) The lunar soil has been formed by a variety of processes, including micrometeoric impacts.

The powdery grey dirt is formed by micrometeorite impacts which pulverize local rocks into fine particles It is not surprising that it may contain components differing from moon rocks.

Where did the rocks come from? Larger impacts throw larger rocks all over the surface of the Moon.

The Moon was pummeled to such a great extent that the materials we see today on the lunar surface are directly related to the materials excavated and ejected from ancient basin-forming events. The degree to which the far-flung ejecta from the Moon's largest basins influenced the distribution of observed geochemical terranes is the subject of work by Noah Petro (formerly of Brown University and now at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) and Carle Pieters (Brown University).

3) This claim is silly. Titanium is not a heavy element, in fact it is one of the lightest metals. Titanium has an atomic weight of 47.867, iron has an atomic weight of

4) Yes water vapor has been detected on the Moon. There is even a chance that water ice has been detected. It is probably a result of a cometary

5) Just because the Moon does not have a magnetic field now does not mean it never

6) There is plenty of evidence that the moon was volcanically active in the distant past.

The lunar magma ocean was followed by a series of huge asteroid impacts that created basins which were later filled by lava flows. The large, dark basins such as Mare Imbrium are gigantic impact craters, formed early in lunar history, that were later filled by lava flows about 3.2 to 3.9 billion years ago. Lunar volcanism occurred mostly as lava floods that spread horizontally; volcanic fire fountains produced deposits of orange and emerald-green glass beads.

7) There are a number of theories concerning the origin of the mascons. I can't find any scientists who suggest they are artificial constructions.

It is shown that hydrostatic equilibrium theories can account for the excess filling of lava in circular maria and that mascons will result when this process occurs in the presence of a thick rigid lithosphere.

8) Moonquakes can be explained by faulting.

In this case, the release of potential energy through the fault system would be adequate to explain moonquakes, their properties, and the clustering of the locations of lunar transient events around the circular maria.

Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP's) of different sorts have been observed. They are not well understood but to say "are probably not natural phenomena" is a bit premature.

Of the many theories proposed, we believe that they are the outcome of lunar outgassing, that is, gas being released from the surface of the Moon. To learn more about the evidence supporting this hypothesis, please read our scientific papers below.

9) Dr. MacDonald made his statement before the Apollo missions. The seismic experiments carried out on the Apollo missions showed that the Moon is composed almost entirely of material comparable in density to that of Earth's mantle. The average density of the moon is less than earth because it has a very small iron core in comparison to Earth.

The Moon's density is fairly uniform throughout and is only about 3.3 times the density of water. If it has an iron core, it is less than 800 kilometers in diameter. This is a sharp contrast from planets like Mercury and the Earth that have large iron-nickel cores and overall densities more than 5 times the density of water. The Moon's mantle is made of silicate materials, like the Earth's mantle, and makes up about 90% of the Moon's volume.

Densities of Earth's layers:

Continental Crust: 2.7 to 3.0
Oceanic Crust: 3.0 to 3.3
Mantle (silicates): 3.3 to 5.7 (increasing with depth?)
Outer Core (liquid): 9.9 to 12.2
Inner Core (solid): 12.6 to 13.0

10) I'm bored now.

Oh, one more thing. The Moon does rotate!

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:06 PM

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:10 PM
The whole universe in mind-blowing. Either it was all "programmed" and the uniformity, coincidences and structure are a result of the programing language at work; or we just happen to be in one of the infinite versions of this universe or dimension where everything came together just right....the whole monkeys and typewriters analogy.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bsbray11

The moon rotates. It rotates at the rate of once every 27 (point something) days. If it did not rotate there would not be a far side which is never visible. This has nothing to do with physics. This is a simple fact. That you don't know this is an indication of how you can reject the facts of physical science.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by Phage]

The "fact" that the moon rotates and at the exact rate necessary to only show one side of itself to the earth makes it an even more monumental "coincidence" which it is not.

There are no coincedences at all. Everything is determined by the consciousness of the totality of everything.

People amaze me at how moronic they can be at dismissing things as happenstance that are so obvious in large schema rational are not happenstance...


so laugh while you can Monkey boy.....

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Masterjaden]

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:42 PM
reply to post by Chonx

can you please provide the mile standard

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by Masterjaden


That the rotation period of the Moon matches its revolutionary period is not a coincidence. It is a result of tidal locking and is common throughout the Solar System.

If you would like to learn more here is an explanation.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Jiffy

Originally posted by Chonx

To reiterate that:

The Sun is 400 times bigger than the Moon but also 400 times further away.

Flaw in your equation right here.

The Sun > 400x The Moon.

No it's not....

moon diameter 3474 km, multply times 400 equals 1,389,600

Sun's diameter 1,391,000 km .~400x difference.....

try thinking before you post.


posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:08 PM

Originally posted by TNT13
reply to post by Jiffy

He's actually right that the diameter of the sun is 400 times larger and his equation proves it. We're not talking entire area we're talking diameter. If it was entire area 64 million moons can fit inside the sun.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by TNT13]

Ah, thank you for clarifying

I'll give this another read with heightened curiosity now.

I remember Hoaglund saying something about the moon being constructed a while ago. It was a very interesting topic. Anyways, thanks again for clarifying!

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by spitefulgod

From the Moon, the Earth completely covers the Sun, including its corona.

From the Earth, the Moon covers only the disc of the sun, allowing the corona to become visible. Compare this photo to the one from Kaguya:

If you have ever seen a total eclipse you would know how spectacular the difference would be. I saw the one in 1991. Two prominences were visible. Amazing.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by Chonx

Something else to concider is that somehow the size of the Sun seems constant in the sky all year round eventhough the Earth moves along an elliptic, not circular path. The distance between the Earth and the Sun varies with about 5 million kilometers from Jan. 3rd (perihelion - shortest distance) to Jul. 4th (aphelion - furthest distance). It makes no sense to me. Have others thought about this and found an answer?

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

A 3% difference.
The sun has an apparent width of .5º.
3% of .5º is .015º.
Not very noticeable.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by Azgard123

Azgard, only two things for you:

Your part 10, about Apollo 13...was that a typo? Ermmmmm....the third stage of the Saturn V did NOT go to Lunar Orbit.

Your part 13, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the Moon rotates about an axis. IF it did not rotate at all, then we would eventually see both hemispheres as it orbited the Earth.

I'd suspect your sources, maybe examine them critically.....

EDIT: Oops, Phage beat me to it, and more splendid job he did!!

[edit on 2/26/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:48 PM
Good post and I find myself frequently thinking about these types of so called coincidences. I ultimately find myself doubting the possibility of it all just happening to play out so perfectly. It seems to me there is some kind of creation or engineering of the way our solar system works just right to support life. It is possible that it is all chance and we just got lucky but I doubt it. I am not saying everyone's different god did this but I do think there is a creator/god of some kind. Whether it is the big bang who knows.....

It is all truly amazing and I am lead to further believe day by day that there is no coincidence, just the illusion of coincidence.

Until we have the answers........

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:50 PM
reply to post by Chonx

Hmmm, well...seeing as all humans are on Earth and a coincidence is a human concept.... it is! come on man, you're just being pedantic!

Lol yea that sounds like me. Just saying "THE biggest and most mind bending coincidence" would've sufficed.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:54 PM
I concur. It is a strange and huge coincidence.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:56 PM
Eclipses happen on most planets with moons. Astronomy photos show eclipse shadows passing on Jupiter, for example. Of course, the shadow would imply that the moon covers the sun. With all the moons in the solar system, there may be others that have similar qualities concerning size/distance.

Perhaps someone like Phage may know of more details.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:05 PM
Absolutely wonderful thread Chonx. I'd honestly never thought about it before but it's given me a lot to think about.

Originally posted by Chonx
Another point of interest is the fact that we have an abnormally large Moon and how this may go some way as to explain why life even evolved here in the first place. The stabalizing effect the Moon's gravity has on the Earth's wobble may well have played a part in the creating the stable environment life requires to evolve, or at least increased the chances of it happening.

This brings to mind the Pagan belief of the moon being the feminine 'mother', and the sun the masculine 'father'. Perhaps both - in their exact forms and distance that they are to us here on Earth - were essential for to our existence in much the same way that the our own mothers and fathers are mutually essential to or individual existence. Fascinating.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:27 PM
As a novice on this site I am really impressed with the knowledge and the effort made by many of the writers on various subjects. I simply wish that some of them would be a little less 'poignant' in their replies to others.

To the subject at hand. I too find it amazing that the earth-moon relationship has so many fortuitous coincidences (from our perspective). Many of these were really well reviewed in a documentary called 'What if there were no Moon' in a Discovery Channel show a year ago. I highly recommend it to all those who share awe over this issue.

At risk of being savaged by some of you, I will make two factual assertions that I am sure some or many dispute.

Ref the comment by someone that the earth-moon and other solar system stuff came from a supernova. Actually, I read that our Sun is probably a third generation star, meaning that the elemental basis for our solar system traces its origins back much farther than the 5 billion years or so that our solar system has existed. I don't remember the exact source for this, other than believing it is also cited in Bill Bryson's book 'A Short History of Nearly Everything'. So from my perspective it does not seem incredible that we can sometimes find rocks older than the solar system.

The Second assertion relates to the supposed Rotation of the Moon. In short, I do not believe it actually does rotate, as most of us understand 'rotation'. Without getting into complicated scientific theory and explanations, I have always loved using simplistic daily life examples to illustate certain points. To support mine, I will use the example of a record album's rotation [okay, for younger folks, I concede this is no longer part of daily life]. For those of you that still own a turntable, put on an album and notice that the album spins around a central post which holds the album in place. Let us suppose that this central post represents earth, and that the outermost album part represents the orbit of the moon around the earth. Now let us take another object (like a plastic soldier figure) and tape it to the album facing the central post; let us say that represents the moon. Turn on the turntable. Notice that soldier always faces the central post, in its orbit around the post. Yet it does not rotate on its own axis, as its taped down. Next take the soldier and turn him backwards (facing out) to replicate the effect of a half rotation on its own axis. Turn on the turntable and notice that the back of the soldier is always facing th central post. Voila. There is no conceivable means of rotating that soldier on the outer album edge without exposing a different view of that soldier to the album's central post. As the moon always has the same side facing the earth, I simply infer that the moon also does not rotate on its axis in its orbit around the earth. If someone could prove to me how that would be possible using these simple objects I would gladly concede my error, and change my opinion. I really don't like being a contrarian on this issue with my friends.... none of which have ever been able to rotate the soldier without exposing mulitple views of the toy soldier to the center of the album.

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by Sashromi

Hi, Sashromi, welcome!

I'll take a stab at that soldier taped to the record album....two things, the 'tape' sorta represents the concept of 'tidal locking' (although SOME will argue it is not a true phenom)....

Back to the toy soldier.....change your perspective to looking down from above, and watch that soldier 'rotate' about its axis....does that help?

EDIT: One more stab at it...imagine that the did NOT rotate. Now, conceding that is orbiting our planet, then from our point of view we be able to see all sides of the Moon, as it traveled in its orbit.

[edit on 2/26/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by Sashromi

To backup what WW said:
Instead of a soldier, tape a penny to the edge of the record so that the top of Abe's head is pointing straight up at the 12 o'clock position of the record.

Rotate to the 3 o'clock position, where is the top of Abe's head? 3 o'clock, right?

How about at 6 o'clock, 9, and back to 12. Abe has just rotated 360 degrees while completing one revolution. The whole time keeping the bottom of his neck pointed at "Earth".

Now, take the tape off the penny but hold it with your finger so it cannot rotate. Now "Earth" gets to see all of Abe. (This is no way to treat an LP).

The problem is you are looking at the soldier relative to the disc. Rotation is movement relative to the center of that object, not another object (or position).

[edit on 2/26/2009 by Phage]

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in