• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 742 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:59 am

Who Built the Moon?

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Who Built the Moon?

Unread post

Image

I am currently reading this book. I read an earlier one called "Civilization One" by the same authors. I call this "crankism." I don't mean that to be insulting. There is a difference between a crank and a kook. A kook is just a nutjob who tries to force their insane ideas on others and, when they succeed, the results are disastrous. Marjorie Taylor Green is a kook. A crank in contrast is someone whose ideas are "out there" but they are interesting and merit discussion. Even if you don't buy their conclusions, you learn a lot by studying up on their ideas.

Cranks are generally harmless but kooks are dangerous. As an example, Gavin Menzies is a crank who posits that the Chinese circumnavigated and mapped the earth in 1428. It's an interesting idea and he introduces you to various features of the earth that may have been left behind by this Chinese voyage. Even if you don't believe that this voyage took place, you learn about these strange anomalous features as well as the odd maps used by European explorers that had places on them that weren't supposedly discovered yet and so on. By the time you're done reading, you're not so sure the voyage didn't really happen and even if it didn't, there's a lot of stuff that still has to be explained because conventional histories don't even account for them. A kook, the other hand, calls the coronavirus "kung-flu" at rallies, gets wild applause, and then nutjobs are going out into the streets attacking anyone who looks Chinese because "you brought this virus here." One celebrates the Chinese for their inventive genius, the other condemns them for something they had no control over.

Cranks often garner a dedicated audience but their ideas stay confined among that audience and no one gets hurt. Kooks try to forced their ideas on the mainstream or try to legislate them into our lives where they are not wanted and people don't react to that very well. It would be folly for people to put Menzies' 1428 voyage into history texts--at least yet. Some people have no interest in 1428 and they have a choice to remain ignorant of it. Nobody is going to legislate it into their lives. If someday the voyage is proven to have taken place then, fine, we'll put it in the history books. Until then, keep in its designated corner where people who choose to debate it can do so without bothering anyone else.

"Who Built the Moon" is book for the crankists. I must say, just reading the introductory matter is an education in how the moon orbits, how the phases work and how ancient peoples both regarded it and tracked its movements. It's worth reading just for that. But Knight and Butler take it further:

-How is it possible, they ask, that the moon should mimic the sun's movements so precisely and in reverse, no less? If you think about it, it shouldn't be possible.
-Not only does it mimic the sun in reverse, its disc is the same size as the sun's to observers on the ground. Why is the moon so big in relation to the earth? No other moon in the solar system is a quarter the size of the planet it orbits. They are tiny in comparison--1/80th the size. How did this happen?
-Why is it that the moon vibrates like a gong when struck? No other celestial body we know of does this that we know of. It should be impossible UNLESS the moon is hollow! But if it is hollow, it can't be natural.
-Where exactly did the moon come from? It seems to be exactly the age of the earth BUT its rocks are older than any found on earth. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old but the oldest rocks we have are about 3.5 billion years old but moon rocks are 4.5 billion years old. Why the billion-year difference?
-One thing we notice of the moon's composition is that it is the same stuff we find in the earth's crust but not in the mantle or core. It's as though something hit the earth and blew off part of its crust to form the moon. That's interesting to posit because it explains something about the earth that we have observed on no other planet: continental drift. All other planets' land is locked in place but the earth's land is sliding around the surface of the planet. Did this happen because something struck the earth removing a huge amount of the crust producing huge gaps? One thing we notice is that if we were to take the moon's mass and distribute it over the earth, it would be enough to eliminate the drift and fill in the oceans. Is this how our oceans formed?

And I'm just about a quarter of the way through the book. The authors also discuss how ancient societies created the megalithic yard and why. They uncover some queer information about where Stonehenge and Avebury are located where they are even though it must be coincidence and yet it cannot be. They point out that Thomas Jefferson devised his own measuring system that has astonishing results for calculating the size of the earth. Where did he get it? Where did Jonathan Swift get his information found in "Gulliver's Travels" that Mars has two moons (150 years before we knew Mars had moons at all), gave their approximate distances from the planet and their periodicity where the inner moon revolves around Mars twice in a day (something not predicted by celestial mechanics). Were there ancient sources of knowledge available back then to the intelligentsia? If so, what happened to it? Where did it come from? Who discovered it and how? How old is it?

"Who Built the Moon" and "Civilization One" are both thought-provoking and worthy of discussion. These are big, complex books and not written for sensationalism. I've barely touched on anything presented in these books, barely skimmed it. These are works where you can suspend your skepticism without suspending your intelligence in the process and that is the most valuable thing about crankism--it allows us to discard our hardened beliefs for something different, something worth thinking about. Always being certain about the things we have no real certainty of is inherently unhealthly. So set your mind free for a little bit. Let the skeptics have their little laugh. Spring-cleaning for the brain.

I've ordered these on Kindle but you can get them in hard book form too. It doesn't matter how you do it, just do it.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Who Built the Moon?

Unread post

I find myself searching for a different term for "kook," since I think of kooks as flighty, ineffectual people who mean no harm. So I see Marjorie Taylor Green as something worse than kooky. But I know what you're getting at with your distinction between two types of "out of the box" people. I think one thing you're responding to with cranks is that they have done the work, shown dedication to their far-out claims, whereas a kook like Green has no intellectual investment at all, is simply an opportunist.

I recall reading Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision way long ago. From somewhere came the claim that Einstein or someone very famous died with the book open on his desk. (That claim is supposed to be proof that a brilliant man took Velikovsky seriously.) Velikovsky had a breadth of knowledge nearly unmatched, and he used much of it to construct grand theories such as that earth had suffered collisions with other planets in the past. He was the most famous contemporary example of a catastrophist. Although I've forgotten the book, I'm sure you're right that there was much to be learned from it. Velikovsky was so smart that one would have to be really smart to be able to refute him, without replying merely that true scientists don't believe him.

I once looked into the Shakespeare authorship question and still find it interesting. Knowledgeable people have argued that Shakespeare was a front man for the real author. Yes, I suppose the claim is preposterous, but still, could the actor/businessman who in his will left his wife his "second best bed" really have written the most famous plays in world literature?
Last edited by DWill on Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Brooks127
Senior
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 6:23 pm
10
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 110 times
United States of America

Re: Who Built the Moon?

Unread post

DB Roy wrote:A crank in contrast is someone whose ideas are "out there" but they are interesting and merit discussion. Even if you don't buy their conclusions, you learn a lot by studying up on their ideas.
I'm one of those who enjoys speculating on whether or not we went to the Moon and seen a few documentaries on the subject. I gotta say, I've learned a lot about technology of the period just from the documentaries. Anyway... I can see why people would think we didn't go to the Moon. Sputnik changed the world. Ham radio operators tuned in just to hear it beep. The United States had something to prove to the world, and what better way then wanting to put a man on the Moon to plant a flag? Better still, there was no way to check they actually did.

Today we have this as proof: blurry, pixelated pictures to prove the flag is there. :clap2: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19050795

I believe we went to the Moon, but I do think the evidence is less than convincing we did. At the end of the day, it's a good debate over coffee.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Who Built the Moon?

Unread post

Who Built the Moon does sound "cranky." On one side you describe the primary theory of the formation of the moon where a Mars sized object strikes the Earth, then the moon forms out of that debris. On another side the moon is described as hollow and therefore unnatural. Those two can't be reconciled. It's also claimed that the Moon has the same materials as the Earth's crust (which supports the collision theory), but does not contain material from the Earth's mantle or core. However we have never directly sampled the Earth's mantle let alone the core, so I don't know how such a statement can be made. Anyway, sounds like a fun book, possibly on my future/sometime list...

Regarding Velikovsky, he claimed the planet Venus was ejected from Jupiter around 15th century BCE. I haven't read the book, but can't imagine what data was available in 1950 to suggest such an event. He may have been very smart, but seems like a kook to me, although since his ideas aren't dangerous he's a crank according to DB Roy's definition. :x

Regarding men landing on the moon on 7/20/1969, if we faked it experts from many advanced countries would have exposed that long before now.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Who Built the Moon?

Unread post

LanDroid wrote:Who Built the Moon does sound "cranky." On one side you describe the primary theory of the formation of the moon where a Mars sized object strikes the Earth, then the moon forms out of that debris. On another side the moon is described as hollow and therefore unnatural. Those two can't be reconciled.
In this case, they don't have to since the authors were bringing up various theories of the moon's origins and discussing the pros and cons of each. They, thus far, have not chosen one as definitive.

Velikovsky's ideas were definitely off the deep end but I recall in Carl Sagan's Cosmos series that he criticized the scientific establishment for trying to silence Velikovsky. If Einstein read Velikovsky, it only proves what I'm saying. Sometimes you need to read something "out of the box" to jumpstart your own theories.

One thing about online discussion I abhor is the chronic skeptic. Skepticism is okay and it is necessary. The earth isn't flat and none of the "evidence" they present to show that it is actually works whereas simple observation disproves it beyond all doubt. But constant harping on things trying to prove the world is a boring clockwork bores the hell out of me.

I see nothing wrong with studying the UFO phenomenon. Is it worth studying? I think so. To dismiss all of it as misidentification of conventional aircraft or natural phenomena is fine as long as you never see one yourself. Once you do, you can't go back. Some say they are military aircraft. Well, ya know, some certainly are and some certainly are misidentifications. The Pentagon and Navy have released clips of UFOs that certainly are noteworthy. If they are all secret military aircraft, what is their purpose? I mean, if it's military, it should have something to do with national defense. These craft should be used in wartime situations and for enforcing the peace--kind of like atomic bombs. They should be common knowledge so that people know they are real and what they can do. Yet, these craft are kept secret. Hell, we can't even be sure that they are ours. What would be the purpose of that? To deny the reality of these objects is to deny the video proof released by our own govt. Either they are real in some way or it is a black op. Either way, that is an alarming situation.

Another example is the idea that the octopus came from outer space. Sure, it's looney BUT it stimulates discussion of exactly where life does come from and why the octopus is so weirdly intelligent. Whenever I see someone posting stuff like that online, I leave it alone. After all, we may realize that ALL life on this planet actually came from space. It's entirely possible and to read these skeptical responses to something that these people couldn't possibly know any better than anyone else is just arrogant and boring and often posted by someone with no real scientific background but who want to look like they have one. You can dig up anything pro or con on the internet. I say go ahead and question if the octopus has a terrestrial origin. To just say no and leave it at that isn't productive. Look into its origins and then look back into life's origins. There's no end to it. If life is from space, then where in space? If it isn't then how did it just pop up all the sudden? Then you have to ask how does consciousness happen? Why are crabs conscious but the shells they carry around are not? It's called the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can say the shell is not composed of the type of chemical compounds that allow for it to be alive but it leaves unanswered why life should happen at all.
I may see a light as blue and you may see it as red but why do we see it as anything?? Skepticism may make you look smart superficially but you only ultimately don't know anything more than anyone else. Life is a big mystery and skepticism can't change that. I think that is a misuse of skepticism.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Who Built the Moon?

Unread post

Well, astrology entailed a great deal of detailed observation of the skies and could be said to have led to the science of astronomy. Perhaps even phrenology in some way stimulated the science of neurology? Those two examples, though, were respected inquiries in their own time, while the authors' moon theories and those of Velikovsky are not and were not. But then you could look at those theories as challenges to an orthodoxy, and do we want to stifle that? Probably not. If the theories really are outlandish, at least the established authorities can benefit from the exercise of defending what they see as the truth. Only if anyone feels he or she has time for this kind of debate, though. In general, I don't. Creationists are sometimes eager to debate evolutionists, but I'm not interested in joining or listening.

I'm still going to defend skepticism as the proper critical attitude. It doesn't need to be obnoxious, though, the equivalent of "shut up about it." Just over the mountain from me, a U.S. Representative named Denver Riggleman, a Republican defeated by a far-right challenger last November, had an interesting journey with the Bigfoot believers. He became involved with these folks out of fascination with Bigfoot and did get into that culture. That led to him publishing something that dealt with the sex life of Bigfoots (Bigfeet?), for which he was roundly ridiculed during his campaign. He won anyway. His defeat for re-election was due to his officiating at a wedding between two men. After his loss, he became probably the most outspoken Republican against the lies Trump told about the election. So, when it came to the real world, where beliefs have consequences, he came through big time.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Who Built the Moon?

Unread post

You don't need to go to the cranky side for science that is weird and not "boring." Check into quantum mechanics, multiverses, the 50/50 chance that we exist in a simulation, etc. etc.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Who Built the Moon?

Unread post

DWill wrote:Well, astrology entailed a great deal of detailed observation of the skies and could be said to have led to the science of astronomy.
And alchemy gave us chemistry. Many of compounds and processes we have discovered were actually discovered by alchemists. Everything from gunpowder to Glauber salts to porcelain to calomine lotion came from alchemy. I have a lot of books on alchemy. It's a fascinating
I'm still going to defend skepticism as the proper critical attitude. It doesn't need to be obnoxious, though, the equivalent of "shut up about it." Just over the mountain from me, a U.S. Representative named Denver Riggleman, a Republican defeated by a far-right challenger last November, had an interesting journey with the Bigfoot believers. He became involved with these folks out of fascination with Bigfoot and did get into that culture. That led to him publishing something that dealt with the sex life of Bigfoots (Bigfeet?), for which he was roundly ridiculed during his campaign. He won anyway. His defeat for re-election was due to his officiating at a wedding between two men. After his loss, he became probably the most outspoken Republican against the lies Trump told about the election. So, when it came to the real world, where beliefs have consequences, he came through big time.
Sounds too good for the republican party.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Who Built the Moon?

Unread post

LanDroid wrote:You don't need to go to the cranky side for science that is weird and not "boring." Check into quantum mechanics, multiverses, the 50/50 chance that we exist in a simulation, etc. etc.
QM was crank stuff that was eventually proven to be real. Good book on it is Sean Carroll's Something Deeply Hidden.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Who Built the Moon?

Unread post

-Why is it that the moon vibrates like a gong when struck? No other celestial body we know of does this that we know of. It should be impossible UNLESS the moon is hollow! But if it is hollow, it can't be natural.
This hollow moon theory looks to be the epitome of cranky kookiness. If the moon was hollow, its mass would be far less than it actually is. Astronomers have calculated the mass of the moon because it keeps it in stable orbit, it causes tides on earth, and it causes the precession of the equinoxes. These are all calculated and observed so exactly in line with the classical mechanics of gravity that there is no such room for error in mainstream science.

The problem with cranks is that scientists can point out a glaring flaw in their theory but they just don't care, because they are emotionally invested in it. And often, cranks are self taught and have major serious gaps in their knowledge. That enables real experts to see the immediate error in their ideas.

There are examples of theories such as continental drift that were initially dismissed as crank but proved to be true. Astrology is a very interesting case in point, since its cultural background is so complex. It is clear that there are seemingly astrological phenomena, such as the ability of rats to sense the gravity of the moon. But in line with the theory of paradigm shift, such anomalies are dismissed as the preserve of cranks when they appear to undermine a prevailing opinion.

Another major supposedly crank topic is the invention of Jesus Christ. Several scholarly books provide strong evidence for the invention hypothesis, but this just gets dismissed out of hand by Christian apologists on fallacious grounds such as that the existence of Jesus is so widely believed that it must be true. There are people who are so fearful of being labelled crank that they will not investigate evidence. One interesting example is the influence of Buddhism on Christian origins, which appears massive, but gets generally dismissed by Christians.

A useful starting point for such analysis is the crackpot index - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackpot_index
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”