Intelligent design of Earths moon is all too obvious

a reply to: Kandinsky

How very post modern of you my friend!

It's just brain in a vat, which ultimately went back to 1641 (Renee Descartes) or even Platos shadows on a cave wall.

That's why I don't like worrying about beginnings and endings.. they are both equally worthless.

I'ts learning to live in the "middle"---which is all that we or anyone else will ever have---that is the trick to master.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

'Live in the now' as they say.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I have to wade through my tube subs to find it, and am wanting to see sunlight today ... but a quick duck duck brought htis up and I suspect it is where the Tuber got his info...

not a simulation?

edit to add: skip to the end to find the caveat that any base universe kmight no0t have the same physics or constraints, but interstin nonetheless.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

It certainly is funny interesting. Roughly the distance relations earth moon - sun earth is the same.
The same goes for sun moon size.

Which means.... on our sky the moon is visibly roughly the same size as the sun. Maybe its about gravity? But still quite interesting.

originally posted by: Kandinsky

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?

That certainly agrees with what we're learning about the quantum aspects of our existence. It's profound to think about it exactly that way---both beautiful and sadly poignant

Whenever the subject comes up in various ways I know I always bring Consciousness up, but it seems to to negate "hard" materialism and gives room for wonder. Everything that we've created stems from our awareness and the ability for abstract thought. Yet consciousness, as far as we know, is weightless and massless--its very existence seems to negate materialism--and seems infinite in its creativity.

It's hard for me not to conceptualize it as anything other than a spark from a greater consciousness.

a reply to: Baddogma

"“Who knows what are the computing capabilities of whatever simulates us?”"

That's the problem of knowledge, as previously stated. Honestly, physicists have the kind of foundational paradigms, just the same as spiritual people. Scientists MAY be more rational, for what that's worth.. but not always even that.

a reply to: The GUT

If we are part of a greater consciousness, that consciousness would not consider us to be 'lesser'. So to honor, this hypothetical 'greater consciousness', I will follow the same wonderful example and not consider 'it' greater, or myself lesser or anything else lesser. It would be insulting to do so. If this 'greater consciousness' does not exist, then the result is the same as if it did.

KPB, Gut.
If one practices the discipline of regarding oneself as a separate Being from all else, some practical things begin to happen.

Egregores for instance.

The "scientific mind" of the west becomes visible when you practice separateness. One can examine it and watch who interacts with it.

Same with Catholicism, the egregore of the Church of Rome is examinable.

Hindu, bhuddist, the egregores become visible as city states in the landscape.

The trick is inside and outside being valid dimensions.

It can be so very lonely outside the egregores until one makes friends.

Compare being inside an egregore.

The view from with is that the egregore is of the egregore being the infinite and all. The surface of the egregore seems to act as a firewall filter with what is outside the egregore. It seems that the egregores themselves tend to interpret what passes into the egregore.

The science egregore has no fairies within, so very sad, but such is science's nature.

Just an observation.

Edit: I am aware that within bhuddism, separateness is considered black magic and by their definition makes me a black magician. Yet in my encounters with hostile Beings, to consider oneself one with them will give them the win for the fight. The new age opens with "we are all one" and love everything. Tactics.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
homepages.wmich.edu...

The angular diameter of the Moon is proportional to the ratio of the Moon's physical diameter (3476 km) to its distance from Earth (about 384,400 km from the Earth's center on average). Using the small angle approximation, this angular diameter as measured from the center of the Earth works out to be about 0.518 degrees (31.1 arc minutes; a small correction would be needed to account for the fact that the observer lies somewhere on the Earth's surface). However, the Moon's center may be as far away as 406,600 km and as near as 356,600 km from the Earth's center1. These angular diameters are 0.490 degrees (29.4 arc minutes) and 0.558 degrees (33.5 arc minutes), as measured there

29.4 arc minutes + 33.5 arc minutes = 62.9

Take the average

62.9/2 = 31.45

Pi of a circle = 3.1415

which is one thousandth percent of difference between these values.

The Intelligent design of Earths moon is all to obvious.

Here Here!

Also... Its only occurring at the ONE PLACE locally... Where intelligent life could observe and ponder it....

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

You're wrong. Science reveals many wonders. Just because it has no fairies, and sees no need for fairy dust, does not make the findings of it incorrect or somehow not wondrous.

The aggregate opinion of science is not the result of some random association of minds, it's a collective judgement based on a universally adopted method. You can't draw any conclusions about the scientists from their results, nor can you say that everyone is in agreement. All you can say is that they followed a process.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

You're wrong. Science reveals many wonders. Just because it has no fairies, and sees no need for fairy dust, does not make the findings of it incorrect or somehow not wondrous.

I said it was very sad that there were no fairies within science's egregore. I find it sad because I enjoy the company of wood-nymphs.

On the other hand it is perhaps a good thing to, for one can guess what western science would do to a fairy if it got it's hands on one.

I didn't say science has no wonders.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Nope..we cannot say they followed a process.

Followed a script that changes depending on the field...

Those scripts are altered at will by governing bodies to control and alter mountains of real info..real data....in order to bury so much.

The worst kind of system it is,
insideous by this point...boring and worthless to the public.

A forlorn excuse which should be thousands of times farther ahead...roadblocked and culled constantly.

Completely controlled by the ultimate religion...and in need of a major change in direction...a human direction.

divide by 2 because....?

a reply to: ParasuvO

Yes we can. I have two science degrees, I know what that process is and how it works. There is no script. If you want to prove the currently accepted version of reality reduced by science you are welcome to do so, but you need to follow the same process that requires standards of proof and replicability.

Bleating on about the system and how much you think it is unfair won't work.

a reply to: Mazey

He took the quoted minimum and maximum and used those to make an average. Such a value assumes an evenly distributed range of othervlunar distance which may not actually be true.

Yes! I absolutely saw that, around 20 years ago to be exact! Me & my dad were out one night star gazing, I would bet it was a summer night. We both saw it, looked like a pole/post sticking straight out of the moon. We watched it for a few hours, it stayed right with the moon the whole time, so it certainly seemed to be attached to it somehow. It had the same color & luminance as the moon did as well. Seriously the strangest most bizarre thing either of us had ever seen. I just can’t believe I ran across this post just now, because honestly I have scoured the internet for years searching for some kind of explanation, or at least someone who shared this experience.

a reply to: solve
Yes! I absolutely saw that, around 20 years ago to be exact! Me & my dad were out one night star gazing, I would bet it was a summer night. We both saw it, looked like a pole/post sticking straight out of the moon. We watched it for a few hours, it stayed right with the moon the whole time, so it certainly seemed to be attached to it somehow. It had the same color & luminance as the moon did as well. Seriously the strangest most bizarre thing either of us had ever seen. I just can’t believe I ran across this post just now, because honestly I have scoured the internet for years searching for some kind of explanation, or at least someone who shared this experience.

a reply to: SasparillaMan

Sounds like we saw the same thing, and around(ish) the same time!


What the heck was it? Somehow i feel like there must be a ground operation, and maybe a satellite station above it,

...I wonder, how many have seen it...

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

All these systems.. duality-based ones.. non-duality-based ones.. the foundations of rational science.. they all make assumptions that I do not make.

The Kundalini system I studied for 40 some years was an interesting one.. as it was considered 'left handed / dualistic and even evil by some" but it purported to lead to nondualistic awareness, in the modern version of it anyway.

But it turned out to have nothing to do with dualism, or nondualism, as it's end product.... not anything of any real benefit to a human being at all.. which is why I am choosing not to document the process for posterity.

I'm pretty sure that the mechanism involved explains a great deal about UFOlogy and the "paranormal" but I"m far from convinced that any of that has a benefit to the human race. I think that once everyone is force jacked into the net with a brain implant, and the technological singularity occurs, nobody will care about such subjects any longer.

We are doing something from an older time..

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I had to look up what dualism was, Descartes?
I read a little of Descartes and was not impressed.

Non-dualism seems worse

In spirituality, nondualism, also called non-duality, means "not two" or "one undivided without a second". Nondualism primarily refers to a mature state of consciousness, in which the dichotomy of I-other is "transcended", and awareness is...

To me at least "non-dualist" means human "spirituality," where the monotheistic concepts arrange the world into a oneness. In practical terms that oneness thinking is often found inside egregores where patterns, order and rules apply. Karma, and God for instance can be seen within the Buddhist egregore as a rule, and God in the monotheistic egregores.

Human thought is an odd thing to look at when it's within an egregore. And standing out there looking at the egregores and the surrounding thought-life of everyday people, I often wonder if the worlds of thought and all therein would all disappear if humans were not here to think it.

A few days ago I watched Persephone (of Greek mythology fame) tinkering with the egregore of western science and the Egrgore of the CERN and LHC. She had the most curious smile on her face and her countenance suggested she was not impressed with what they were trying to achieve, yet at the same time there was the look in her eyes of pride in seeing a small child draw a recognisable picture for the very first time . I gained a perspective of just how young humanity is in it's "science".

Outside the egregores and thought, for me at least everything is doing, and any thought I give the things I do is only building an ordered form that my brain(?) mind(?) can understand. You once remarked KPB, a certain caution in the egregore I was building. The thought was not lost on me (smile)

I often waffle on like this,, perhaps it is just my translating the unthinkable unspeakable doing into thought. My three years on ATS has been an exercise in translating into anecdotes. Odd, suddenly I can see not Persephone, but a few others beside me watching my thoughts as I write. I suddenly feel like I drew a stickman for the first time myself.

We have a long way to go KPB,

The kundalini is old technology, as I would say, plugging into the "technological singularity" is old too. Done before as you say.

Science has only impressed me once, and that was a BBC TV documentary on Chaos Theory and the Mandelbrot especially. The infinitely repeating pattern illustrates humanity's plight so well to me. Yet it also says that if we can simply see that we can step out of the Mandelbrot of thought, there is a wonderland of new things and futures to explore. Diversity at its finest, diversity at it's most frightening, diversity at it's most wonderous.