• In total there are 19 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 19 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 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

Re: Who Built the Moon?

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: 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.
Slow down. It was something some people assert about the moon. The authors mentioned it for that reason only. It is NOT the subject of this book. They go through a painstaking discussion of the tides and how the moon orbits.
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.
Well, cranks and kooks. The difference is that cranks only hurt themselves. Kooks hurt everybody. If a crank group believes the moon is hollow, they're not shoving it down my throat or yours. If they believe it, they are only hurting themselves and people have a right to hurt themselves as long as they don't hurt others. But a kook might believe the earth was created in 6 days because the bible says so and so everyone must believe it and we are going to teach it in school and not scientific theories which is just atheist religion. THAT hurts everybody. After all, the hollow-mooners have a point: if the earth is made of the same material as the earth's crust, then why does it vibrate when struck? That opens up a whole line of discussion during which those who participate will learn new things.
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.
Suicide hotlines have known for years that activity increases during the full moon and would hire extra operators for the duration even though science insists there is no correlation.
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.
I don't call the Jesus thing crankism. It's kookism. It's shoved down our throats and legislated into our lives. If Christians stayed in their corner and debated it among themselves and any outsiders who cared to engage them, that would be fine. But no--you and I have to believe this garbage and they won't stop until we do.

[quoteA useful starting point for such analysis is the crackpot index - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackpot_index[/quote]

Thanks, looks interesting.
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

Some interesting points:

-The moon's movement against the starry background takes 27.322 days for the moon to return to the same position.
-The length of a year is actually 366 days by the moon. If we divide 10,000 by 366, we get 27.322.
-Every 10,000 days, the moon completes exactly 366 orbits around the earth.
-The earth's mean orbital velocity around the sun is 1/10,000 of the speed of light in a vacuum--29,780 meters per second. Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s. That's accurate to 2/3rds of a percent.
-What makes the above fact even stranger is that, starting in 1972, we had to add a leap second to every year. By 1999, however, this was no longer necessary. The earth's orbit around the sun is slowing but no one knows why.
-The diameter of the sun is 1,392,000 km while the earth's is 12,742 km and so 109.245 earth diameters could fit within the sun's diameter. Yet, when the earth is at aphelion (its furthest distance from the sun), 109.267 sun diameters could fit in that space. Even stranger, there are 10,920.8 km in the moon's equatorial diameter.
-The moon turns exactly one kilometer every second at its equator.
-The moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun and 27.322% the size of the earth.
-The sun is exactly 40,000 Megalithic Yards per Megalithic Second of Arc while the earth is exactly 40,000 km at its polar circumference. The latter is intentional but how did megalithic people know about the sun?
-This means that nature used a metric system and a base 10 system that also somehow works exactly as the megalithic measurements used by ancient peoples.

So, we have three possibilities:

1) This is all wild coincidence.
2) There is a god.
3) There was an ancient civilization very advanced that left behind systems of measurement to humanity from very early on and whom, it would seem, manufactured the moon from the earth.

We discover new things about the moon all time. Only very recently did we discover water on the surface of the moon--something we previously thought impossible. As for the moon's possible artificial origins, we may know for sure quite soon:

https://www.mining.com/moon-richer-in-m ... %20thought.

We have now discovered the moon is more metallic than we previously thought and Trump signed an order in April of last year giving the United States the right to start mining the moon by 2025. This order was signed without international consent and it remains to be seen whether it will be allowed to take place. I think it is far more important that we learn to start pushing asteroids out of earth's path and the Japanese have already landed on asteroids and so it is within our grasp to do this as well as mine them. But what do I know?
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

So did you finish that book? What did the authors conclude / who built it / what is your takeaway?
(Other than the factoids listed.)
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: Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:51 am So did you finish that book? What did the authors conclude / who built it / what is your takeaway?
(Other than the factoids listed.)
Yes, I finished the book a while ago (sorry, I've been absent for quite some time). I don't want to say what the authors concluded. You really should read the book. You won't be sorry. As Pogo would say: "We have met the enemy and they are us!" Although, in this case, I wouldn't call them an enemy. My takeaway is that their conclusion for who did this seems far-fetched but it's the only one that can explain what we observe. It's not a new idea--a lot of people have advanced it for various reasons but the authors really explore it and all I can do is concede that they may have gotten it right after all. If they are right though, then man-oh-man, we are due for some serious future shock.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”