THE biggest and most mind-bending coincidence on Earth!

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
Because life as we know it would have been drastically different if the moon wasn't there, the authors of the book came to a very startling conclusion which is so bizarre that I won't describe it here but I have to admit, they made a very convincing case for their conclusions.

Yes, I was actually surprised by their conclusion - not what I'd expected.

However I stick with the idea that if the Moon wasn't exactly as it is, we wouldn't be here and therefore we'd be somewhere else where the Moon is just right.

In an infinite universe, somewhere or other must be just perfect in every way for human life to evolve.

I think it's called Earth

reply to post by Essan
There are at least 4,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in known universe, and really what are the chances there could be another planet with life on it.
I mean really the odds would have to be at least 1 in 1,000,000,000 so with these odds it would be quite silly to think other planet in universe could support life as we know it.
We are only Planet with life, that will ever have life, has ever had life, the Earth is only 6,000 years old and God only loves Earth, and is just waiting to Destroy this mistake, grind everything up into little ball and start over.
That will make it 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,002 attemps to get this darn thing right.
I'm sure next one will be it, I'm sure of it and really that number is much bigger, but my 0 finger was getting tired, plus I would not live long enough to write real number.
You need all the right coincindences for eveything to work porfect, it must be very hard to get all these things to sychronize just right.
God might need bigger computer to do this, someone should drop him a E-mail on that one , I 'm to tied up right now, I'm trying to count to the last number, and have only just gotten in to the[ impossible numbers.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by googolplex]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by googolplex]

The moon does rotate, as in it turns on its axis. It also revolves about the Earth.

The Earth takes 1 day to make one complete rotation on its axis, while it takes 365 days to make one revolution about the sun. Therefore the same side of the Earth faces the sun 365 times per year.

The moon on the other hand takes 28 days to make one rotation about its axis, and also 28 days to make one revolution about the Earth. Therefore the same side of the moon will always face the Earth.

The times are not strictly accurate but are fine for this explanation.

agreed - very interesting anomalies - for further reading get the book "who built the moon' - so many coincidences that they become statistically significant, at least to my beer soaked brain

reply to post by bsbray11


You are getting the terms rotation and revolution confused, since the moon oribiting about the Earth is revolution, not rotation. Unfortunatly you are right in that "everybody else" calls it this also, because it is a common mistake.

The rotation of the Moon can be demonstrated by setting up a Foucault pendulum at the north pole of the moon, where the pendulum will complete one cycle in the same amount of time it takes the moon to rotate (28 days). A pendulum on the north pole of the Earth takes 24 hours to complete its cycle

The pendulum remains fixed to distant stars on the celestial sphere and so swings on the same plane always, while the moon or earth below it rotates, making the pendulum look like it is keeping swinging in different directions.

Although how the pendulum "knows" to keep fixed to these distant positions is a point of coincidence in itself.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by spaniard]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by spaniard]

the real unfortunate part about this topic along with many others is the simple fact that literally everyone looks past such a simple and yet unbelievably complex world and disects it until it doesnt seem so beautiful and wonderful anymore. now instead of appreciating the beautiful home we have we pick it apart and materialize it to the point where it seems like this place is a man made slum. if only we all woke from this nightmare to realize we're actually in a beautiful dream and we should do whatever we can to keep it beautiful.

reply to post by mosey


Dreams are nice but are not real.

I prefer to live in the real. Though there may be ugliness, the fact that it is real does not make it any less beautiful.

There is beauty and wonder in learning and understanding.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Chonx


You should be more amazed that we only see one side of it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mosey

 

Dreams are nice but are not real.

I prefer to live in the real. Though there may be ugliness, the fact that it is real does not make it any less beautiful.

There is beauty and wonder in learning and understanding.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Phage]

prove to me that life is real and i will fully accept your claim as fact.

reply to post by Acidtastic


hello acidtastic

Yes the planets of the solar system are related by a number known as golden ration, which is 1.618... This is found by dividing a number in the Fibonacci sequence of numbers by the one preceeding it. As you go further along the sequence the result comes closer and closer to the number 1.618 or the golden ratio, also known as phi.

The time of their orbits, distances from each other and much else is related to the golden ratio. The number appears a lot in nature, in human proportions and in architecture and art.

The golden rectangle was found to be the most pleasing to the eye of any rectangle. This is a rectangle where the length of the sides are in the ratio 1:phi.

The golden spiral is drawn in this way




It is found in the shape of galaxies as you said




in nature




The golden ratio itself is importantin human proprtions and in architecture









Do some research and you will find this number EVERYWHERE. Another coincidence of the universe...or is it. I have not come accross anything yet about the moon, but it would not suprise me to find something related to it and the number phi.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by spaniard]

Originally posted by mmariebored

Originally posted by Chonx
The Moon is actually steadily moving away from Earth at about 3.8cm a year so 200 million years ago for example, the Moon would have been too close and too big, more than blocking out the Sun entirely. Conversely, in a few hundred million years the Moon will be too far away and too small to cover the whole Sun during an eclispe.

If the moon is moving away from the earth every year, the rate at which it moves away would increase more and more every year.

The problem with the "moon moving away" "global warming" etc... is that we have been measuring this no where NEAR LONG ENOUGH to know whether it is an ebb and flow sort of thing, i.e. natural cycle or if it is constant, accelerating etc....

It's time we start recognizing that we know next to nothing. There is too much supposed knowledge and not enough wisdom in the scientific establishment.

Jaden

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mmariebored

 

Yes....mmarie....

At a few millimeters every year.

So, even if it were ten centimeters per year, for the last, oh say 2000 years, it would still be a change of only 20,000 centimeters, or 20 KM.

AND, this is a gross exaggeration, to show that as a percentage of the distance, compared to the ability of mankind to actually sit and observe, it is miniscule. AND, at any given point on the Earth's surface, the chance of a 'total' solar eclipse being observable within one human's lifetime is equally miniscule.

EDIT for the math...originally, had an extra zero and wrote '200 KM'. Still, since I exagerrated the rate of the Moon's moving away, it is still a tiny difference, to a Human. For instance, 3 Billion years ago, the Moon was much closer....and, possibly, still rotating much faster than she is now. Both bodies, the Earth and the Moon, would, of course be dancing around a common 'center of mass', located somewhat deeper towards the core of the Earth than it is now. THIS effect, the close proximity would likely, over the span of time, result in a 'drag' effect on both bodies.

So, in fact, we owe the fact that the Earth was conducive to the evolution of life, and ultimately, US, to the Moon's influence. ALSO, she may have protected the Earth, early on, by taking a lot of the stray impacts from left overs of the early formation of the Solar System.....


[edit on 2/27/0909 by weedwhacker]

actually 20000 cm would be 200 m or .2 km, not 20km

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Masterjaden]

Originally posted by die_another_day
This is not a coincidence, the Sun is NOT PERFECTLY behind the moon so that we can see a ring of light. It's no where near the correct aspects.

I understand how it is that we see the ring of light, but if it's "no where near the correct aspects" then how do we recognize a solar eclipse in the first place? It would have to be pretty damn near the "correct" aspects to cover the Sun like it does during the eclipse if you ask me. Why are so many people exaggerating things so badly to try and downplay these coincidences?

reply to post by Masterjaden


YES.....Master!!

My calculator died, and it was late....and being a Yank, I missed a few decimal points. Thanks for pointing it out....the fact that in 2000 years the Moon has moved farther away as to be imperceptible to Human eyes.

reply to post by bsbray11


bsb, you and die another day are close to understanding, but focused maybe too much on what Hollywood science fiction has shown us, over the years.

I don't have the linky (don't know how, anyway) but there is a LOT of info out there on this here 'thang' we call the Internet, to read and learn.

It's not magic, or occult....it is science and astronomy....hundreds of years of observations....at first, by the naked eye, with meticulous records. Later, with optics....and technology improved, the ability to observed improved, and the accuracy increased. THAT is the scientific method.....

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by die_another_day
This is not a coincidence, the Sun is NOT PERFECTLY behind the moon so that we can see a ring of light. It's no where near the correct aspects.

I understand how it is that we see the ring of light, but if it's "no where near the correct aspects" then how do we recognize a solar eclipse in the first place? It would have to be pretty damn near the "correct" aspects to cover the Sun like it does during the eclipse if you ask me. Why are so many people exaggerating things so badly to try and downplay these coincidences?

can't you understand that light travels AROUND planets because their paths are bended by bodies of mass?

it's not a coincidence, the dimensions are not right.

reply to post by die_another_day


Light is "bent" by gravity but the moon does not have enough mass bend it any observable amount. The Sun does though.

The "bending" of starlight by the Sun becomes apparent during a solar eclipse, but not the bending of sunlight by the moon.
physics.ucr.edu...

reply to post by die_another_day


die....it IS true that very large gravitational masses WILL bend light....but, only slightly.

It requires very sensitive instruments to measure this....the Human eye would never see it.

However, not sure how this pertains to the size of the Moon, and the so-called 'co-incidence'?

One more time.....let's say the Moon never formed....would Earth have harboured life?

Two other likely candidates, in OUR Solar System, are Venus and Mars.
Venus, a bit closer to the Sun....depending on the environment, could be survivable by lifeforms such as us. Venus is slightly smaller than Earth, so gravity is about the same, slightly less. Unfortunately, Venus took a path incondusive to life, as we know it. (AT least, that's how it looks now...)

Mars....well, again, perhaps a few million years ago, had an atmosphere that could sustain our life.....but now, of course......why?

Earth happened to be in the so-called 'sweet spot'....not by design, just by chance.

Out of all of the billions of stars in our Galaxy alone....a very good chance remains that, sometime within the last Billion years or so, other planets could exist, have existed, or will exist.....with all of the components necessary for life to bloom. Of course, that is conjecture.....

Back to Earth.....It is generally assumed that life began on Earth in the Oceans. It took a long, long time for the oceans to form, it took another long, long time for life to begin....these spans of time are SO outside normal Human comprehension!

Finally....about LIFE and coincidences....there is likely life in the Outer Solar System....on the Moons of Jupiter and Saturn. I mean, if organisms can thrive at the bottom of Earth's oceans....no light, no oxygen, but living off of volcanic vents....then, life can thrive anywhere.


EDIT....this thread is like the 'chicken or the egg' question. The fact that we ARE here to discuss it, isn't about magic or religion. It is simple: We are here. Now, figure it out!!!

[edit on 2/27/0909 by weedwhacker]

Wow, thanks for all the responses! I've been busy in the world outside the internet the last couple days and as such have not had the time to keep up with this thread, although a quick skim shows me there is a great deal for me to read and ponder.. I'll hopefully have some time tomorrow and I hava a few things I wish to add to the debate so... see you then!

thanks again!

The Web of Life by Fritjof Capra points out there is no need for stability for life to exist.