Intelligent design of Earths moon is all too obvious

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: AthlonSavage

Apparently, the chinese government are making moons now to put up in certain areas, so it could well be a true theory!

Now why did that make me think of a Chinese dubbed version of King Frat.

One of the most politically wrong and bad taste movies of the very early 1980's, it is just bad taste today but back then was very funny.

a reply to: AnahataN

what are the odds that it would randomly end up in such a position that from our unique perspective, and only our perspective,

Saturn has two moons, Epimetheus and Pandora, which meet the proper parameters.
www.eclipse-chasers.com...

So, three examples in the Solar System. We know there are a lot of other systems. So probably not all that special.

Very cool though.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Possibly, yes.

It's easy to say 'ritual' or 'religious significance' for anything and everything..
both by speptics and believers alike. They both tend to do it.

a reply to: Phage

And of course the apparent size equality of sun and moon doesn't happen all the time, and given that the moon is slowly receding from the Earth will not be a feature forever.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

So if you mess around with numbers a hell of a lot, then ignore the differences between one set of numbers and another, and find a strange similarity between a set of numbers describing a sphere and another number that is also useful for describing a sphere, this is somehow proof?

Also, I dispute your '1000th of a percent' figure.

Even i we allow for the fact that your 'average' of 31.45 has to be divided by 10 to get to 3.145, the difference between that and 3.1415 is 0.0035. 0.0035 is 0.111% of 3.1415, not 0.001%. Added to that is the use of an average based on two extreme values - this is a statistically ill advised calculation. The actual average given in the link you post is 31.1 arc minutes.

This also kinda proves that the wheel was invented thousands of years before actually stated date (4500 bc)

Math wasn't needed to make stuff roll down a hill. Pi was irrelevant to figure out that f. ex. rollers (logs), would ease the moving of large objects.

Everything the ancients saw in the sky, was round objects...

a reply to: kloejen

Everything the ancients saw in the sky, was round objects...

Just two. The Moon and Sun
The rest are points of light (or oddly shaped blobs like the Orion nebula) without visual assistance.

There are some curious things about our Moon.

A recent book ("Who Built the Moon" I think, by Knight ,Dunn) notes many strange math coincidences concerning a "megolithic yard" and the Moon. Not seeing the same coincidences anywhere else in our system, they build a case for artificiality.

Spoiler alert: They guess that humans discover time travel in the future, go back to the dawn of the solar system and build the moon to ensure that humans develope, as the Moon was guessed integral to our life here, setting it up to cover the sun when we are aware enough to notice so that some clever individuals will look closer and notice it's artificial and start it all over again.

I have no informed opinion on the matter : ) ...but liked the out of the box thinking and they DO have decent points based in maths that aren't as oddball as the time travel guess.

An artifical Moon paradox/time loop is actually one of the tamer alt theories about ol' Luna. I fully expect to be captured by the Moon and recycled as forever food when I slough off my mortal coil... maybe.

a reply to: Phage

ohh you edited... nvm

originally posted by: kloejen
a reply to: Phage

You forgot then sun (god?)

Heh. Yeah. But I got the edit in.

a reply to: pointessa

a reply to: Klassified

I keep an open mind as long as I'm tethered firmly to a basic premise. In this case, I don't believe the universe is human-centric so there's my anchoring point from which to explore novel ideas.

Think about the size of the known universe compared to us. There are galaxies that dwarf ours which are so distant it's practically impossible for us to ever visit. More stars than grains of sand on a beach and tens of billions of galaxies already. None of which disproves a 'human-centric' universe, but it does beg the question of why so fricking HUGE if it's all just for us? What's more is it keeps 'growing' as technology allows us to see more of it.

This is what I wonder when I contemplate Gods, ID and existentialism. It's fascinating that we couldn't be here if everything where we are wasn't 'just so.' Maybe you're right and maybe none of us really know?

a reply to: Kandinsky

There is something comforting, to me, about a non anthropocentric universe. If we were the focus of all this (waves arms around) then what a terrible responsibility ... and if designed then we are likely under microscopic scrutiny by whomever made it.

I prefer randomly congealed and left to our own devices, due to stage fright.

a reply to: Baddogma

I'm with you on that.

My sticking point is what if we're the only intelligent, technological life in this end of the universe? Or worse, ALL of the universe. The responsibility of being the awareness of the universe is a heavy one, right? It's almost like we could ruin our environment and die out.

Like the old 'if a tree falls in the woods' thought experiment. If nobody is around to be aware of the universe, does it really exist and would it even matter?

a reply to: Baddogma

The old folk also have lots of interesting things to say about the woman with copper bells on her cheeks,

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: Kandinsky

There is something comforting, to me, about a non anthropocentric universe. If we were the focus of all this (waves arms around) then what a terrible responsibility ... and if designed then we are likely under microscopic scrutiny by whomever made it.

I prefer randomly congealed and left to our own devices, due to stage fright.

In Isaac Asimov's Robots of Dawn series, the Robots, who had to protect humans, altered all time and space,
so that humans could not be harmed... which meant they genocided all intelligent species in reality, other than humans.

Be careful what you wish for! (or program into your all-powerful robots.

It's nice to see you posting.

Kev

a reply to: Kandinsky

Presumably there are universes where small sponge creatures, with all but no intelligence
are all that could have evolved from initial conditions.

They wouldn't even have the intelligence to wonder about a spongicentric universe!

But it could well be true.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The "genocided all sentient critters other than man" idea is everywhere now, thanks to that Chinese trilogy "Three Body Problem" ...which is excellent, btw. It IS one answer to the Fermi Paradox, though most advanced cultures using communication other than stone age EM waves is the more likely one.

I hadn't been reading any fiction, but was glad I made the effort as the ideas were well worth it... if a tad dismal.

Reminds me, there was a Youtube I wanted to watch where a sci-fi author spoke about the surprising new finding that indicated we were NOT in a simulation... heh.

Likewise on posting, kind sir.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Aye, there might well be.

a reply to: Baddogma

Link please on not being in a simulation!

But even if that were true.. we are apparently in a quantum computer sort of Universe,
which is just another way of running a simulation.

whether a simulation evolved from the 'big bang', or whether that happened PLUS
some alienz sucked us into yet ANOTHER layer.. it's irrelevant.

I'ts one of those situations, where even if simulations don't exist, they still do.
It's just called a different name.. and has 1 fewer middle man.

Then... more importantly.. if there are hard limits to what we can ever know (there almost certainly are, then it's impossible to know what is beyond your 'pay grade' and all knowledge becomes worthless, except the knowledge of how to adapt to that situation---and that's what is called 'being a Magus' or even 'being enlightened'.

Personally, I prefer those little cherry pies you can buy at Walmart, for 50 cents each.

That's proof of a benevolent simulator (j/k).

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Plus it's all part of the Zeitgeist lingua franca. Used to be humanoids in atomic rocket ships and now it's all AI and simulated universes.

Someone once said they can date every sci-fi story based on its themes and technology and they were spot on.