Why is this the case?
>>43056186Why should it be something else?
>>43056186Sun is developed tech. Moon too. Sizes? Dont matter in theory.
>>43056190It is everywhere else in the solar system so it isn't some physical relation between planets and their moons
>>43056186Sun represents fire, biggness, day, yangMoon represents water, smallness, night, yinThe sun is bigger than earth, the metasystem, the moon is smaller than earth, the mesasystem. These dualities are so important to the functioning of the psyche, it created two massive balls in the sky, about the same size seemingly, to represent this. Presumably, once humans live on the moon, smaller masses will be put into lunar orbit as well.
>>43056208>Moon represents water, smallnessSays who?
>>430561981 - what is "everywhere else"?2 - you didnt answer why it should be something else.
>>43056214The other planets in the solar system. Their moons are all either much larger or much smaller than the sun in their sky. So there's some law of physics that makes them the same size
>>43056186Man I think gravity is more or a series of nested 3d cymatic resonances.Because then it's like, maybe because of the proportionality of all things would make more sense why the moon is in the exact orbital path that it is.Or maybe I'm wrong idk. "the universe is made out of music, and every specific point or location in the cosmos has its own distinct tune or tone." -Gwildor, He-Man 1897
>>43056234>Their moons are all either much larger or much smaller than the sun in their sky.Should they not be?>there's some law of physics that makes them the same sizethere's laws that describe if something is too big or small or moving too fast or slow for certain orbits.What else are you looking for?I am guessing that you are putting a lot of "must have a reason" on something that does not because it strikes a pattern in your brain.It's like how getting 2,3,4,5,6 of clubs in poker is seen as very special because it fits a pattern in our brain, even though it has the exact same odds of appearing as any other specific combination of cards.
>>43056186Its a fourth wall breaker that shows the spirit came before the matter.Earth also spins around the sun 66.6k miles per hour and the angle between the line from earth to the sun and from the earth's pole to the sun is 66.6 degrees. The moon is 2160 miles wide (6x6x6 = 216). "sun moon" in gematria gives 666 as does "mathematics of the circle" or https://gematrinator.com/blog/2020/05/31/the-eclipse-crucifixion-code-in-the-gregorian-calendarhttps://gematrinator.com/blog/2022/10/25/examining-the-earth-moon-sun-system-in-hebrew-and-english
>>43056296>Should they not be?It means it isn't a matter of physical necessity that a planet and its moon have this relationship>there's laws that describe if something is too big or small or moving too fast or slow for certain orbitsM-hm and they allow for moons of all sorts of apparent sizes from the surface, as seen with all the other moons>It's like how getting 2,3,4,5,6 of clubs in poker is seen as very special because it fits a pattern in our brain, even though it has the exact same odds of appearing as any other specific combination of cardsThis is more like saying it's just a coincidence that cards are labeled with. numerals since any other shape would be just as likely out of all possible random shapes
>>43056186For an aperture. Like a camera lens. It's the universe taking a selfie with us. It's like god winking to let us know it's around. It's cosmic peek-a-boo. God hides the sun to prank us. Like booping a babies nose. Such a simple act it goes over our heads. But the meaning derived is incredible. And that's kinda the whole point. The press.
>>43056326>It means it isn't a matter of physical necessity that a planet and its moon have this relationshipWho said it was?>This is more like saying it's just a coincidence that cards are labeled with.Not at all. It is an understanding of statistics.Any specific combination has the same odds, but we put special significance when specific combinations show up because we have values that come from completely outside the activity.
>>43056387>Who said it was?This is the reason that it could be otherwise in physical terms>It is an understanding of statistics.You're misapplying the principle you're thinking of. Again it's like saying that this reply has no actual meaning or message because, if we take the set of 2000 unicode characters it could have been comprised of, this combination is as likely as any other. So we can't say these combinations of characters actually impart meaning since any other combination would have been as likely if it was randomly formed.It depends on knowing that you are dealing with something random. The fact that this reply, with the combination of characters that it has, appears to have strong meaning that it would be very unlikely to randomly have is a strong argument that it was not randomly generated.Even down to the fact that it takes context into account. Earth is the only planet with a surface that has an audience to appreciate the aesthetics of how the moon and sun appear in its sky. The others don't. Just like how the unicode character combinations here appear to be arranged for an audience, as part of a conversation.
>>43056459>This is the reason that it could be otherwise in physical termsWho said it couldnt?>You're misapplying the principle you're thinking ofI'm not because your example of language DOES have the value we impart built into the activity, unlike the arrangment of cards, and unlike the arrangement of moons.>It depends on knowing that you are dealing with something random. 1 - no such thing as random, what you mean is unintentional. Not the same thing at all.2 - intent is what OP is very badly asking about, and I am pointing out the info given has no bearing.>appears to have strong meaningthis is the point you are missing. the "strong meaning" is only coming from outside the activity. This is not the same with language.There has been no indication of "strong meaning" given.Only of statistical anomaly.
>>43056474>Who said it couldnt?You started the conversation asking why it should be something else. If you have randomly sized moons, the odds are extremely low that they match the sun in their sky, as we see in our own solar system.>I'm not because your example of language DOES have the value we impart built into the activity, unlike the arrangment of cards, and unlike the arrangement of moons.That's assuming the arrangement of our moon imparts nothing. It appears to be a deliberate aesthetic choice for the one place where there will be an audience on the planet's surface.>the "strong meaning" is only coming from outside the activity. This is not the same with language.Nor is it the case with aesthetics. Symmetry and balancing is one of the most basic features of aesthetics, and we see it here where there is no physical necessity for it.
>>43056500>the odds are extremely lowWhich means if it was impossible, it would show clear signs of intent.But being low odds means nothing, intent-wise.> It appears to be a deliberate aesthetic choice No it doesnt any more than the other arrangements do.YOU are putting value on the arrangement that comes from entirely outside the arrangement.>Nor is it the case with aesthetics.But it completely is.A sunrise simply is.Any evaluation of it being beautiful comes entirely from outside the activity.
>>43056513>Which means if it was impossible, it would show clear signs of intent. But being low odds means nothing, intent-wise.Your point here doesn't make a ton of sense. Something impossible is...well, not possible; it isn't an option. Meaning comes from things have very low odds if randomly generated. Like this reply: is it impossible that someone made a program to generate series of unicode characters of 2000 or less and post it to 4chan? No, heck I'm sure somebody has P: but the odds of the results being context-responsive and meaningful to an audience are extremely low.>No it doesnt any more than the other arrangements do.The two largest lights in our sky being perfectly balanced adds nothing aesthetically to our sky?>A sunrise simply is.I'm not sure what you mean here exactly, could you elaborate? If the sky built around the presence of an audience, like say in a simulation, then this wouldn't be correct >Any evaluation of it being beautiful comes entirely from outside the activityCan you elaborate on how you're applying this here, exactly?
>>43056533>Something impossibleSorry for the confusion. I meant "not possible to be generated with specific intent.">Meaning comes from things have very low odds if randomly generated.It doesnt. At all. Like your reply.It would be MUCH lower odds if your reply was nothing but AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABut there would be much less meaning in that.>The two largest lights in our sky being perfectly balanced adds nothing aesthetically to our sky?1 - not perfectly balanced. You ARE aware that the ratio changes, right? That both moon and sun appear larger or smaller at different times of the year?2 - there is no aesthetic appeal inherently in the arrangement. Any value there is being externally projected by you onto it.We can just as easily assume that there WERE architects, but they find ZERO significance or beauty in the rare arrangement, and spent all their time on the moons of Saturn.>I'm not sure what you mean here exactly, could you elaborate?The value is not in the system. It is in you, the observer. You are projecting aesthetic meaning, not discovering it.
>>43056559>"not possible to be generated without* specific intent."
>>43056559>Sorry for the confusion. I meant "not possible to be generated with[out] specific intent."Well again, that's essentially nothing. There's no combination of matter that couldn't theoretically be the result of random collisions.>It doesnt. At all. It does, you can tell this message isn't a random series of unicode characters since it is comprised of English words that follow rules of English grammar. Only a vanishingly small proportion of randomly generated sequences of unicode characters would do this, so you can infer there's meaning these characters instead of them being randomly generated.>not perfectly balanced. You ARE aware that the ratio changes, right? That's a necessity of elliptical orbits which are, themselves, a physical necessity for a physical system like our's. But on average the sun and the moon appear the same size to within 3%.Since according to NASA at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html and https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html,the sun has a diameter of 1,391,400 km, the moon a diameter of 3,474.8 km, the sun is 149,600,000 km away, and the moon is 384,400 km away.So they're going to match to within 3% on average.>there is no aesthetic appeal inherently in the arrangementPeople find symmetry, order, and balance inherently aesthetic. It's why we called ordered and balanced sounds "music", and their features like rhythm and tunes distinguish them as music instead of noises.>The value is not in the system. It is in you, the observer. Well exactly. It's something that takes the fact there will be an observer into account.
>THE TOP RULING ELITE ARE ALL PART OF THE CULT OF ATON – THE SOLAR CULT OF SUN WORSHIP>THE ANCIENT ROYAL DRAGON BLOODLINES ARE ALL PART OF THE MOST POWERFUL CULT OF ATONDruids were the Most Advanced Spiritual Teachers of Antiquity, and they were well known and highly respected throughout the Ancient World. Scythians were the Aryans who Conquered much of the Ancient World, and established the Seed Culture and Knowledge Base that became the Foundation of all of the Mystery School Teachings. Scythians of the Dragon Bloodlines, had taken over Royal Dynasties all throughout the Ancient World.>The Scythians had Invaded Ireland many times. The Hyksos were a Breakaway Race from the Scythians. They were the Conquerors of Egypt’s Lower Kingdom.>After the Hyksos Conquered Ireland they Highjacked the Druids Spiritual Teachings, Cultural Knowledge and Advanced Systems of Learning.>After the Fall of the Heretic King Akhenaten, the Hyksos were Expelled from Egypt. More than 100 years after that time, that Historical Event was used by the Hyksos as the basis of the Tale of the Exodus of Moses.These Hyksos – Cult of Aton Royal Elite then used their Secret Knowledge to Establish Israel.>There is No Archaeological Evidence or Historical Proof for the Existence of King Solomon, his Temple, or City because King Solomon was a Myth based upon Akhenaten.>King David, Solomon, Joseph and even Abraham were not poor lowly Shepherds.They were Hyksos Royalty, and the Cult of Aton is behind the Judaic Religion.>>43040229
>>43056583>There's no combination of matter that couldn't theoretically be the result of random collisions.Sure. So looking at any particular arrangement and saying "this MUST be from intent" purely because it is uncommon is wrong.>It does, you can tell this messageIt doesn.t We have already seaparated language from looking upon physical arrangements, but we dont even have to do that.Do you think an LLM couldnt come up with your message?There is no longer the ability to necessitate intent just because an arrangement of letters makes syntactical and grammatical sense.>That's a necessity of elliptical orbitsSo you agree it is an error to say that are perfectly balanced.Perhaps if they WERE, it would show intent.But the fact that it has natural variation is a huge data point against the idea of intent.After all - the satellites we put into orbit do not have these wobbles.>People find symmetry, order, and balance inherently aesthetic.This is you agreeing with me that people project value outwards, it is not in the thing inherently.> It's something that takesSo you think the ratio of distances is self-aware?Otherwise no - the physical arrangment is not "taking into account" anything at all.
>>43056186Harmonics
>>43056190Statistical probability
>>43056610The fundamental issue we seem to be circling is how you can determine significance vs. randomness. What tells you that the combination of unicode characters in this reply has significance, rather than being randomly generated text? Walk me through your reasoning >So you agree it is an error to say that are perfectly balancedNot, not at all, as I showed they're within 3% on average. They'll appear the same size to an observer, hence why we can have total eclipses. >the satellites we put into orbit do not have these wobblesThat's not so, their orbits are elliptical as well, elliptical orbits are (generally speaking) a physical necessity with these sorts of systems>people project value outwards, it is not in the thing inherentlyThis depends on how you're defining "outwards" and "inherently", if the purpose of something is the effect it will have on the audience then your reasoning here does not work. >Otherwise no - the physical arrangment is not "taking into account" anything at allThat's like saying these words aren't from something intending to impart meaning because unicode characters aren't self-aware
>>43056198Lol
>>43056727If you NEVER rolled snake eyes, that would be something interesting.Seeing an arrangement is rare when everything says it should be rare is not an indication of anything.>>43056729>how you can determine significance vs. randomnessAgain - random is not a thing. It doesnt exist. It is a concept that comes from having too limited an ability to determine something.>What tells you that the combination of unicode characters in this reply has significance, rather than being randomly generated text?Not the question though.The question is what makes you think there is an intent behind the words, rather than a statistical result without intent?Chatbots do not have intent, yet they can write paragraphs purely based on the probability of the next word.>Not, not at all, as I showed they're within 3% on average.Yes - after I pointed out you were wrong to call them perfectly balanced.>their orbits are elliptical as welltheir distance from an observer on earth does not change up to 3%.>This depends on how you're defining "outwards" and "inherently"We are defining them as the general usage. Trying to semantically change the words is dishonest and irrelevant.>if the purpose of somethingThat CANT be the purpose of the thing. It can only be the purpose of the creator.And we have not determined there is a creator, and it would be dumb to assume that.>because unicode characters aren't self-awareCorrect.You are trying to say the unicode characters themselves are trying to do something.
It feels like you're starting to sway pretty heavily now >>43056750>random is not a thing. It doesnt exist. It is a concept that comes from having too limited an ability to determine somethingYou clearly know what I mean by the term, why are you being pedantic? >The question is what makes you think there is an intent behind the words, rather than a statistical result without intent?And what would your answer be?>after I pointed out you were wrong to call them perfectly balancedIf you mean *perfectly* then that isn't possible with any orbit since all orbits must decay. They also all have to be elliptical (in terms of arrangements like our solar system) so they'll vary depending on where in the ellipse they are>their distance from an observer on earth does not change up to 3%Well their apparent size doesn't vary since they're so small that they're point-sized, much like stars they appear as point rather than having a size exactly >That CANT be the purpose of the thing. It can only be the purpose of the creatorI find this an ironic statement after having just said "We are defining them as the general usage. Trying to semantically change the words is dishonest and irrelevant.">And we have not determined there is a creatorHow do you determine this reply has a creator?>You are trying to say the unicode characters themselves are trying to do somethingYou're becoming pedantic to the point that it's simply impeding communication
>>43056804>You clearly know what I mean by the term, why are you being pedantic?Because the difference allows for confusion and introduction of implied creation where none is.>And what would your answer be?My answer would be "I'm not the one doing it. I am doubting your assertion of it.">If you mean *perfectly*YOU meant that, unless you would like to admit you were wrong when you said it.>Well their apparent size doesn't vary since they're so smallMore dishonesty. No one said their size. We are talking about their distance, and that doesnt vary by 3% because we intentionally keep it at a certain distance.>How do you determine this reply has a creator?You could be a bot.You tell me how we determine it.>You're becoming pedanticSays the person who has repeatedly tried the "it depends how you define..."You want a rare occurrence to be proof of intent.It is not.
>>43056186Why is this here?
Erosion has worn down the Moon until it's the same size when viewed from Earth.
>>43056186this is the reason duotheism is sensible
I tried prompting chatgpt about the probability this to happen but I'm retarded and don't know how, it gave me some math formulas and was trying to explain it, i just want a percentage of how probable this is
>>43056186 It's for the perfect eclipses, when the moon was put there. As the distance of moon has changed a bit since then due to gravity and centrifugal effects, it's no longer perfect but once it was. Moon is the center of the control system on earth for managing the souls, whatever is beyond physical life/death and reincarnations. And eclipses are major events that have some relationship to this process, maybe as gateway or energy distribution mechanisms. Or regularisation of system, and scheduled maintainence of this Maya. Be it related to the motives of prison planet, zoo, school, or collective consciousness tool. This is my speculation for now, but I'm more confident about it that all the other explanations (that go beyond the mundane materialist views) I've heard. I hope others will provide alternatives that are as possible.
Why is it okay to just post boring science questions on /x/ now and they don't get taken down when you report them for being off-topic?
>>43058608Fuck, and I forgot to sage it.
>>43058608>>43058611oh my science!
Why is the human asshole the perfect size to fit a dog cock and knot?
>>43057625>the probability this to happenExceedingly small, but not impossible.Earth-Moon-Sun is literally the only one that has such close matching ratios. There are one or two other moons that get close, but the odds for being within a consistent 5% range is so far 1 out of all examples known.Which remember - is a small number of knowns. We only have our own solar system to look at. Even accepting the ability to see exoplanets, the only "moon" exosatellites we see are something like one star orbiting another, with something the size of Jupiter orbiting the second.It's like winning the lottery. One in several billions chance, but it DOES happen.
>>43056198There are literally hundreds of moons in our solar system.Only 4 of them are bigger than Earth's, and orbit Saturn and Jupiter. Our moon is MASSIVE in relation to the size our planet.Simple answer: It was placed there.By something or someone.
>>43058970But that isnt the simple answer. Because you have introduced an unknown "something or someone," when you can answer it without introducing that unknown.It is the only setup in our system like that, just like Venus is the only planet in our system that rotates in the other direction, just like Uranus is the only one at the extreme tilt, just like Saturn is the only one with its stable pole cloud in the shape of a hexagon.There are lots of "there's only one known thing like it" in this system.
What if OP wants the Multiple Universe interpretation?It says that life on a planet REQUIRES eclipses, so, there's an unbounded amount of alternative earths with moons on different places, sizes and distances.But none of them have any life at all.We had to be here wondering about the coincidence because otherwise we wouldn't exist.
>>43056750>random is not a thingFalseUnfortunately for hylics auch as yourself you will never know what spirit is. So you will always have false assumptions. And your equations will never predict reality. You'll just always be frustrated by their failure, unable to accept a reality that you cant comprehend. It is what it is. At least you now know what you are
>>43060328>your equations will never predict reality.Never said they would, moron.There is no random BECAUSE of the spiritual, fool.Random is just what people that think they should be in control call things that are outside of their control and understanding.
>>43060391Your demons are doing the typingThere will be no further response
I took it as a divine sign that duotheism is true.
>>43056186It's because the moon is an artificial structure which is currently serving as a space station for NHI's. They deliberately placed it in that spot, probably for a myriad of reasons. They monitor the earth from there and if you believe Bob Monroe, the moon collects souls after you die to be recycled and reincarnated. I don't know about that, but it is 100% a space station.
>>43063649month -> moonthmonastery monarch money monitor
>>43063695Don't forget that Monday is moonday.
>>43056829>My answer would be "I'm not the one doing it. I am doubting your assertion of it."You provide no answer here, I suspect because none can be given that's consistent with your position. Any answer you try to give will undercut it.Again I ask: what is your answer?>YOU meant thatIt's interesting to see someone knock down a strawman then go back, set it back up, and knock it down again >No one said their size. We are talking about their distanceI don't really see how that's of relevance since the thread is about the sizes of the moon and sun as viewed from Earth>You could be a bot.Well again, do you see? You're essentially handing me the victory trophy here and with your prior refusal to answer. You're admitting that under the standard you need to dismiss the significance of the size of the moon and sun in the sky, if consistently applied, rules out any detection of significance. You cannot answer these questions because your standard requires there to be no answer in order for your position to work.
>>43064898>Again I ask: what is your answer?That is my answer. You are directing a question at me that does not apply because I am not doing the activity in question.>a strawmanYOU are the one that said they are perfectly balanced. Not me.>>43056533>The two largest lights in our sky being perfectly balancedYou are lying. You said ti was perfectly balanced, and then demanded mew to answer why I am saying it.That is dishonesty.>the sizes of the moon and sun as viewed from EarthApparent size depends on the distance. We are talking about their distance.>you need to dismiss the significanceBut I dont. I only have to rightly point out that the only significance is coming from you, not from the situation.You are projecting it. It has none inherent, and that projected significance in no way suggests an architect.
>>43056186>line a million people up against a wall>have 999,999 bullets>shoot 999,999 people dead>the one person who survives: Wow, I must be special!
The little stars they shine for you. Its intelligent design. This whole thing was made for man. Cycles, Signs, so they can eclipse. Its a giant time peice. Tav=400=mark, sign, cross. So essentially the Maker did this to mark periods of important events and time.
Source / Text Celestial Sign Mentioned Associated Calamity or MeaningJoel 2:31 Moon turning to blood / sun darkened The coming "Day of the Lord" / divine judgmentRevelation 6:12 Moon like blood / sun black as sackcloth Opening of the seals, widespread global distressMatthew 24:7-29 Darkened sun and failing moonlight Famines, earthquakes, and tribulation eventsBabylonian Talmud (Sukkot 29a) Moon like sackcloth or blood-red Arrows of famine and/or the coming of warThe final harvest.
Its rev 14 the final harvest one of earth and one of men. Death and famine.
>>>/sci/17069633
>>43064912>That is my answer.You continue to be unable to answer because this is the line of questioning that defeats your position. Any answer you give will refute your position.Do you know what you call it when someone is trapped and can't take their turn because any move they make leads to defeat?A checkmate.I don't mean that in the smug meme way. I mean that it exposes a fundamental flaw in the position you're advocating for: it leads to a state where the advocate cannot respond or else their own position will be immediately defeated. This tells us there's a fundamental flaw with it.>and that projected significance in no way suggests an architectWhat would suggest an architect?No answer will be forthcoming since any answer you give will be self-defeating. This is the question that the position you're advocating for cannot answer.>YOU are the one that said they are perfectly balancedThey are, we looked at the math, don't you recall? As an average the size difference is less than 3%. That's with approximate values for the sun and the effect of the moon's recession over time and impacts on the moon that may have shifting this. Your response strikes me as something objecting to calling the pyramids, well, pyramids because their surfaces are slightly weathered and a perfect pyramid wouldn't have divots in its surface.
>>43056186This is why https://youtu.be/0514L2QwOBEhttps://youtu.be/GwkqLv-fOjg?t=2209https://youtu.be/m7ZpvLu_tFEhttps://youtu.be/lKg-yn86zp4https://youtu.be/p-BFmn2S_jUhttps://youtu.be/BVJgObFHLY4https://youtu.be/ru5fdfovkGIhttps://youtu.be/74KRZt5oJMEhttps://youtu.be/tdwy-hxS-tshttps://youtu.be/UAx5cl9VpTEhttps://youtu.be/JlFnJPFjcc0https://youtu.be/XetG30_YOeohttps://youtu.be/ziVLbEoQ4Schttps://youtu.be/7H_1ZbuA9HIhttps://youtu.be/UbYtkrTquXEhttps://youtu.be/1WHIr-IFqAohttps://youtu.be/WcqKUhU0WDchttps://youtu.be/wPrDg0CtWnkhttps://youtu.be/hoGTBdu7dMchttps://youtu.be/mcLwr86emdshttps://youtu.be/U_bJYXS9p4Ahttps://youtu.be/JOqc63Pp9OAhttps://youtu.be/X-w8acuxF6whttps://youtu.be/nGLJ5XJP3uEhttps://youtu.be/olbyJDou4qQhttps://youtu.be/0Q18iSz6mushttps://youtu.be/aFFM3YJAs4Qhttps://youtu.be/Stft_t48Hxchttps://youtu.be/QWa7lTxhrKIhttps://youtu.be/Zc_J2k4Cdp8https://youtu.be/DdLLamniSyghttps://youtu.be/udjk_FB80kMhttps://youtu.be/4nKIN_eHYxwhttps://youtu.be/fDBRhxryfZMhttps://youtu.be/-rmDj1MJyaYhttps://youtu.be/Kv9-JuLRpg0https://youtu.be/7Eeo-82Eac8https://youtu.be/0Vv62PFFsNUhttps://youtu.be/CDG4oiCx_ishttps://youtu.be/wz68Q2Nz05Ahttps://youtu.be/WffliCP2dU0https://youtu.be/uUuTAflN1rUhttps://youtu.be/lkmY_4PKMlYhttps://youtu.be/McdMMmclGVchttps://youtu.be/Cm7fBZq-8T4https://youtu.be/4SlRsbQ3nfMhttps://youtu.be/Z36Ns7KUYHwhttps://youtu.be/XhIwZuPGfsshttps://youtu.be/CATklVkPEMwhttps://youtu.be/eJK1gLHbOxAhttps://youtu.be/WXaXnAvEpB8https://youtu.be/gWnFMWqDRQEhttps://youtu.be/EvnrD49RmAYhttps://youtu.be/3wU8_jT61eEhttps://youtu.be/lMhheDWThxEhttps://youtu.be/hG_sv5SWi3Y?t=507https://youtu.be/UOLLMkAHHQI?t=2477https://youtu.be/d_h5tupEdn8https://youtu.be/jDKfJROVHJEhttps://youtu.be/maBf0H3UNJIhttps://youtu.be/Jm7nBn7RxhUhttps://youtu.be/BEV2SAL8z5ghttps://youtu.be/Qse5Jc8jgSkhttps://youtu.be/zMAa5Ir7IHU
• February 6, 2027: Annular solar eclipse ("Ring of Fire") (visible in parts of South America, west Africa, and Antarctica) death of earth here.• February 20–21, 2027: Penumbral lunar eclipse• August 2, 2027: Total solar eclipse (the "eclipse of the century," with totality lasting up to over 6 minutes across northern Africa, Spain, Gibraltar, and the ArabianDeath of anti christ here.
>>43066276We can actually rule out it's because of something like that. Firstly according evolutionary theory the moon is billions of years old and so under that model, which I assume you believe, it used to be much larger in the sky, so they would posit that life supposedly evolved with this balance not being the case. That would only make this even more striking of that's the case since it would mean the moon reached its position and obtained its balance with the sun right when there would be an audience that could admire the aesthetics of that.The paper at http://barnesos.net/publications/papers/2012.01.Icarus.Barnes.Moonless.Earth.pdf is written to examine the effect of the moon on life.Specifically its effect on Earth's tilt. They modeled a moonless Earth and found that the tilt remained within a band 20°-25° wide for hundreds of millions of years. So, they concluded, it should be plenty stable for life.There's something else we'd expect to see if it was a matter of "well it's more stable so here we are". The tested planets rotating backward relative to their orbital motion (retrograde rotation) and found that those were more stable. Faster-spinning cases, particularly those with days shorter than roughly 12 hours, also generally went through smaller tilt ranges.Based on our solar system and what we appear to be able to see from exoplanets, planets with retrograde rotation or short days should be much more common than ones with a balanced appearance between their sun and their moon. So if it was a matter of "well you're gonna randomly be on some stable planet", that doesn't select for a moon that appears the same size as the sun.
Look up your next two eclipses in local Providence. The first will be death of earth. The last will be death of antichrist.
>>43058970>simple answer>introduces the most complex answer possible and in fact introduces a billion new questionsI already regret clicking one reply deep from the start of this thread. I know it can only get more retarded from here which shouldn't be possible given how retarded this answer was but /x/ always finds a way to out-retard itself.
>>43067629It gets better
Im going to kill you. Your little shits. Your damn gravity. Your science. Fuck you mathmatics. Whores.
>>43067545>You continue to be unable to answerI dont have any other answer because the question does not apply to me.You are asking someone not eating what they are eating. The only answer is "I'm not.">What would suggest an architect?Incontrovertible intent.>They areNo they arent. Are you REALLY not aware of this? Even after you conceded this fact and pointed out yourself how much they change.This is a bad and obvious lie.>>43056583>>not perfectly balanced. You ARE aware that the ratio changes, right? >That's a necessity of elliptical orbitsYou already admitted they arent perfectly balanced. Now you want to say they are.You are dishonest.
>>43067817>Incontrovertible intent.What makes intent incontrovertible?>This is a bad and obvious lie.I gave you the raw numbers and linked you to the source page as NASA. We did the math and looked at the proportions. Unless you're being extremely pedantic they are perfectly balanced. This entire line of discussion seems to be a pedantic semantic argument on your part about the word "perfect", but that sort of semantic quibbling is unnecessary and uninteresting since I've given the numbers and repeatedly stated the specific amounts I am referring to.
>>43056186They are polar opposite. Masculine/feminine. Fire/ice. It's literally the matrix laughing at you.
>>43069560>What makes intent incontrovertible?Confirmation of the person, really. You can say something adhering to the patterns of a different person, once established, but even that can be mimicked.Intent simply cannot be established through chance of occurrence.>Unless you're being extremely pedantic they are perfectly balanced. This is a lie. The sun and moon's apparent size range quite a bit, and often make it so a total eclipse is impossible.> a pedantic semantic argument on your part about the word "perfect"Except that is the word you keep hanging on.Go ahead and admit it is not perfectly balanced, and we can get past your semantics.
>>43056335Wholesome post
