Artificial Moon - Re-Visit

Ever felt like you've had your 'Cage Rattled' somewhat 10/10 that man

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

follow up for illustration


In light of the geometrical relationships involved and the presence of sacred geometry in the Moon-Earth-Sun configuration, I think that the big whack hypothesis is absurd, and that instead, something like this took place.

That said, there's no model capable of showing that the Earth was spinning so fast that the material that formed the moon was thrown off by centrifugal force.

Therefore, it was somehow drawn from the Earth, at just the right location/distance, and by just the right amount to form a long term evolutionary program, and no more.

This is why I think it would be important to try to investigate the moon's core, perhaps by an autonomous drilling probe and/or various sub-surface sensors to find out the shape of the core and what it's made of.


Moon as evolutionary program


Because the moon in early earth history was much closer to the Earth (it's still moving away at about 3cm/yr) it would have appeared (if there was anyone to see it) about 15 times larger in the sky.

Early Earth's ocean tides moved far far inland, with salt water breaking up molecular re-combinations on a continual basis, thus driving a rapid process of evolution early in earth's history.

It is only now in Earth history, however, when man has fully evolved and is capable of observation, that the moon perfectly eclipses the sun.

So the moon is like a machine or a program of sorts running a program (whether by coincidence or not) in favor of the evolution of life on earth, in it's relationship to the Earth, as well as the sun and by extension the planets.

The moon is the Rosetta stone of the planets."
~ Robert Jastrow
First Chairman, NASA Lunar Exploration Committee

"The moon is the mother of the universe."
~ Ancient Egyptian saying.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Excuse me, haven't noticed it. Owe you a

Now I want to point that the word Nature means two different things, depends who uses it. Nature, to a scientist is one thing. Nature, to a mystic totally another. I used the second one, which by all its powers is worthy to "adequately describe" it.

a reply to: Argentbenign

Gotcha. Yes, indeed. Mystic here also.

But the alteration in the frame of reference when the "random" happenstance ie: coincidental fluke hypothesis, is discarded, which it really ought to be, then well, it's just mind blowing and breathtaking in its implications.

The best that the "scientific" can offer up is - it just is that way.

The moon is very much like an egg or a womb for the gestation of evolutionary life on earth, but the context must include by extension the rest of the solar system and the galaxy, and the whole cosmos.

My question is how does this apparent blueprint of design get imbedded into the first cause when our own sun is a fifth generation star?

It's uncanny the degree of fine point control of space and time by "Nature".

The material universe appears to have arisen from and been driven by a perfect will who's very aim is the life we experience, among many other forms on other worlds I'm sure, because if the intelligent creative agent has one trick up his/her sleeve, then it would be expected that there are many more where that one came from, like seeds in a storehouse.

This study of the moon and it's relationship to the Earth and Sun has profoundly impacted by own belief system and mystical experience.

And there it is, right in our face as the midnight sun.



When it's viewed from this alternative perspective (not random fluke), what we can see is a possible sign and allegory delivered to our eyes by the Creator, so that there could be no mistaking the "work of his fingers".

Perhaps the significance of it as an allegory was also noted by a certain itinerant Rabbi about 2000 years ago (about 60 generations), whereby the moon reflects the sun as the son of man, the first father of all creation. The reason I say that is because it appears that a lunar eclipse was employed as a type of cosmic theodolite or lens to perform a Great Work of all Ages while perpetrating a great hoodwink on the PTB of his time, where at the moment that it rose over the horizon that evening already entering into the eclipse phase, the thought would have struck them - how DID he KNOW?!


In the heart of the Ram (conveniently located "nearby" caught up in a thicket, this time, of stars)

Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”
www.biblegateway.com...

Sorry for running off topic to a degree into the realm of astrotheology.. but for those who are interested or intrigued..

The Real Star of Bethlehem - The Study

Full Video - starting at the point where the lunar eclipse on the day of the cross is presented.

removed

This thread is veering into the direction of the Skunkworks forum, methinks.

It still puzzles me why people say the Moon is at a perfect distance from Earth, while acknowledging that it's moving away from Earth, and thus has been much closer in the past and will be much further away in the future.

Anyhoo, talking about sacred geometry, spirituality, and other such things with respect to celestial bodies is, in my view, no different from talking about unicorns and fairies.

originally posted by: wildespace
...is, in my view, no different from talking about unicorns and fairies.

I understand your view. Just to share: Some people, including me take fairies and unicorns very seriously. Propably we have a reason to do so, except of being wackos.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

My question is how does this apparent blueprint of design get imbedded into the first cause when our own sun is a fifth generation star?

It was destined to.
Breathtaking indeed

a reply to: Misterlondon

No disrespect but if you are going to revisit a subject already covered here, you could make a but of effort with the thread..

i gave you a video to watch with a few bullet points. its was to bring to your attention. What more do you want to know, or have you not watched it

originally posted by: wildespace
I wonder how could anyone artificially create a globe of rock 3,476 km across and weighing at 7.342×10^22 kg?

P.S. The Moon does rotate, no it didn't ring like a bell, and no it's not "parked" at a perfect distance between Sun and Earth.

With all these simple and easily-learnable facts about the Moon, the "alternative" videos crumble to dust.

I seem to remember a claim...cant recall where I red it...that if the Moon wasnt here where it is...that life on Earth as we know it...would not be possible.

Care to weigh in ? or is it a bunk claim...?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


That argument has some merit, I think. It seems to have had a gravitational effect over the eons in accentuating tectonic activity [less activity leading to eroded continents and general planet-covering swamps], as well as deflecting occasionally close-passing asteroids [Jupiter was the dominant street-sweeper, or we'd still be engaged in planet-killers every million years or so]. Its presence in the skies was an intellectual challenge to human civilization and the big issue of predicting eclipses -- useful to rulers to pretend supernatural powers -- was THE driver [together with accurate tide tables] to the development of modern mathematics. The development of life, and of mathematics, could have followed alternate non-moon paths, maybe, or maybe not. I'm charmed to think of it as OUR 'lucky charm' that accidentally made everything possible, and perhaps moonless worlds elsewhere [or too MANY moons] will be dull and stupid.

a reply to: JimOberg

I'm charmed to think of it as OUR 'lucky charm' that accidentally made everything possible, and perhaps moonless worlds elsewhere [or too MANY moons] will be dull and stupid.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!

Life on Earth would have indeed taken different paths sans Moon. I like to think that, perhaps, avians would have developed intelligence.

a reply to: Phage

I believe too without the moon, at this point we would be tidally locked to the sun, or rotating verrrrrrry slow. Which would result in extreme climates.. VERY warm, VERY cold..

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Phage

I believe too without the moon, at this point we would be tidally locked to the sun, or rotating verrrrrrry slow. Which would result in extreme climates.. VERY warm, VERY cold..

Is there any computer simulation that suggests that? Cool idea.

Mercury wound up locked in 3:2 resonance, but Venus is even more weird -- it appears ALMOST locked into resonance with the Venus-Earth synodic period [same side faces Earth every inferior conjunction] and all the planetologists can say is 'coincidence'. No, Velikovsky is STILL wrong, but....

a reply to: JimOberg

The BBC did have this programme:

www.bbc.co.uk...


which was interesting but I found her delivery annoying. It made some of those points.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Phage

I believe too without the moon, at this point we would be tidally locked to the sun, or rotating verrrrrrry slow. Which would result in extreme climates.. VERY warm, VERY cold..

Is there any computer simulation that suggests that? Cool idea.

Mercury wound up locked in 3:2 resonance, but Venus is even more weird -- it appears ALMOST locked into resonance with the Venus-Earth synodic period [same side faces Earth every inferior conjunction] and all the planetologists can say is 'coincidence'. No, Velikovsky is STILL wrong, but....

I posted a mistake.

Tidal friction is actually slowing down the Earths rotation about 2 sec per 100,000 years. So if the moon never existed, a day on Earth would be several hours shorter. 21 opposed to our current 24hr a day, cycle.

Other fun facts would be a very serene and quiet ocean. Far less waves. We would have solar tides, which would only be about half what we see now from our lunar friend.

A negative attribute to a moonless sky.. our pole would be very chaotic, constantly shifting. Having the moon helps keep that wobble stabilized and in check. Rather then chaotically moving about on an eccentric wobble.

We would most likely still have life.. But possibly not intelligent life. ( That's my speculation )

a reply to: Triton1128

Other fun facts would be a very serene and quiet ocean. Far less waves.

Waves are caused by wind.
Mostly. There are also landslides and undersea faults (tsunami). Tides, not so much, unless you're talking about rivers and tidal bores.

Having the moon helps keep that wobble stabilized and in check. Rather then chaotically moving about on an eccentric wobble.

Not necessarily.

During 100-million-year simulation runs, for example, Earth's tilt never got up to 40 degrees or down to 10 degrees, Lissauer said.

"For timescales that are relevant to advanced life, it changes by maybe plus or minus 10 degrees — a lot bigger than we have with our moon, but a lot smaller and a lot fewer climate effects [than predicted by previous models]," he said. "The characteristic behavior is very well-behaved, in most cases."

www.space.com...

"There are no Inca."

True, you are correct and everyone else is not. Seems legit

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Triton1128

Other fun facts would be a very serene and quiet ocean. Far less waves.

Waves are caused by wind.
Mostly. There are also landslides and undersea faults (tsunami). Tides, not so much, unless you're talking about rivers and tidal bores.

Having the moon helps keep that wobble stabilized and in check. Rather then chaotically moving about on an eccentric wobble.

Not necessarily.

During 100-million-year simulation runs, for example, Earth's tilt never got up to 40 degrees or down to 10 degrees, Lissauer said.

"For timescales that are relevant to advanced life, it changes by maybe plus or minus 10 degrees — a lot bigger than we have with our moon, but a lot smaller and a lot fewer climate effects [than predicted by previous models]," he said. "The characteristic behavior is very well-behaved, in most cases."

www.space.com...

sciencenordic.com... : Source

Perhaps the most important effect of the Moon is the way it stabilizes our rotation. When the Earth rotates it wobbles slightly back and forth on its axis. It’s like a top, which doesn’t simply spin in a vertical position on a table or the floor. But without the Moon we’d be wobbling much more.

“The relevant link between spin and orbit is very complicated, but in a simplified version you could think of it as being like an Olympic athlete in the hammer throw event,” says Terje Wahl, deputy director general of the Department of Space and Earth Sciences at the Norwegian Space Centre.

“When a hammer thrower spins around before letting go he could nearly be rotating on a pinpoint. But as soon as he releases the hammer he takes a couple of awkward steps and flails his arms to keep from falling down,” Wahl explains.

While there are some differences between the Earth-Moon system and the hammer thrower, one being that the hammer and the hammer thrower spin at the same speed, whereas the Earth and Moon don’t, the result is the same:

The Moon keeps the Earth from wobbling violently as it spins."

With no moon as a stabilizer, the Earth would sometimes tilt all the way over and lie on its side in relation to its orbit around the Sun. This would make for extreme differences between temperatures and daylight throughout the year.

At other times the Earth’s axis would be straight up and down, making night and day equally long, year round, and there would be no seasons.

There would be periods with more extreme weather, and bigger differences between winter and summer.

"A good example of this is Mars, which has no large moon to stabilize it, so it tilts more. The Martian climate and atmosphere has undergone enormous changes in the past millions of years. We probably would see something similar to that here,” says Aksnes.

On Mars the axis tilts so much that the ice now found at its poles has sometimes moved all the way down to the equator. A similar scenario here, with large portions of Africa being covered in ice at intervals, would be rather inconvenient.

( ^^^^^ )

a reply to: Triton1128

Yes. I know that was what was assumed. I pointed out that assumption is not necessarily correct. Computer models show that it is not.


Your source:

Our world would certainly be quite different if it had no large satellite. But apparently it would not be so radically different that its absence would necessarily prevent humans from ever seeing the light of day.

sciencenordic.com...

I read your source. The least you could do is read mine. (Not to mention your own.)

originally posted by: Triton1128
The Moon keeps the Earth from wobbling violently as it spins."

With no moon as a stabilizer, the Earth would sometimes tilt all the way over and lie on its side in relation to its orbit around the Sun.

And why would that happen? Is there any evidence that other planets without a major moon would tilt to lie "sideways" in their orbit?

"A good example of this is Mars, which has no large moon to stabilize it, so it tilts more. The Martian climate and atmosphere has undergone enormous changes in the past millions of years. We probably would see something similar to that here,” says Aksnes.

The climate and atmosphere changes on Mars happened due to the loss of the global magnetic field and, thus, loss of most of the atmosphere.