• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/upgrade-at-10-am-gmt.27631/

Why Three?

Animekitty

(adopted potato) INFP - Dio
Local time
Yesterday, 18:51
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,080
Location
subjective
The distance between the earth and the moon increases, and continental drift happens, at the same rate fingernails grow. At some point in the future, the length of the day will increase such that the year will literally be 360 days. The further out the moon goes the longer the day becomes.
 
Local time
Today, 10:51
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,968
Location
69S 69E
do you have a source for the moon being smaller in the past?
Nope. I just made it up. I assume that over time it would accumulate space debris and grow in size. Billions of years, that would add up.

can you demonstrate how the size of the moon would shift?
Yes, the distance from Earth would expand or contract.

do you have any factors other than an apparent size similarity that demonstrate significance?
Earth, Moon, Sun, the 3 largest objects relative to our existence on this planet. They affect seasons, which affect behavior, which play a significant role to every living organism on this planet.

Like, really, things got the way they are due to the nature of physics. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Do you have an opinion of your own?
Considering that the Earth's gravity is greater than the moon, and it therefore attracts more spacedust than the moon does - and that the amount of weight gained by earth is about 40,000 tonnes per year, or equivalent to 0.0000000000000000001% of mass per year (er, it's meant to be 19 0's but I honestly lost count)

it would take more than 15 billion years for the earth to gain 1% of mass from spacedust

the moon would not be increasing in size in any appreciable capacity, even over billions of years

orbits are also well understood, and it's clear that the moon steadily recedes from earth in its average orbit each year. you're saying it would fluctuate - how do you figure this occurs?
 

computerhxr

Village Idiot
Local time
Yesterday, 17:51
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
726
Location
beyond space and time
Considering that the Earth's gravity is greater than the moon, and it therefore attracts more spacedust than the moon does - and that the amount of weight gained by earth us about 40,000 tonmes per year, or equivalent to 0.0000000000000000001% of mass per year (er, it's meant to be 19 0's but I honestly lost count)

it would take more than 15 billion years for the earth to gain 1% of mass from spacedust

the moon would not be increasing in size in any appreciable capacity, even over billions of years
You really like to get hung up on one thing while ignoring everything else.

I said space debris, not space dust. You are making assumptions based on observations and data from a relatively short period of time. I am talking about in the very early stages of its birth, some 4.5 billion years ago when it was still being formed. During that time, the orbit and dilation of the Sun to Moon ratio would have been much different than it is today.

Technically the Moon went from not existing to the size and mass it is today in least than 5 billion years.

15 billion years? That is just nonsense. The Universe is not even estimated to be that old. The size of the entire universe was smaller than Earth's Moon is today.

What about the Late Heavy Bombardment about 4 billion years ago, when the orbits were chaotic and still being established? Scientists are still debating this today.

orbits are also well understood, and it's clear that the moon steadily recedes from earth in its average orbit each year. you're saying it would fluctuate - how do you figure this occurs?
I'm sure you're just going to argue anything that I say, so what is the point?

The further you go back in time, the less accurate and more contested the orbits become. Well understood given a short snapshot of observable history where the orbits have been well established and relatively stable.

Again, if you look back at the Late Heavy Bombardment, you can see how the position and course of objects were altered significantly, causing the bombardment to begin with.

My hypothesis on how this happens is based on intuition and there will be no specific scientific evidence to prove it. Naturally, you will want to shift the burden of proof onto me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No thanks.
 

Animekitty

(adopted potato) INFP - Dio
Local time
Yesterday, 18:51
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,080
Location
subjective
6.3 million years ago the moon was 100 miles closer to earth. It would have been significantly bigger to the naked eye than the moon today.

red knows science better than me, he may be able to calculate how big it looked and the number of seconds a rotational day would be at that time ago.
 
Local time
Today, 10:51
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,968
Location
69S 69E
Considering that the Earth's gravity is greater than the moon, and it therefore attracts more spacedust than the moon does - and that the amount of weight gained by earth us about 40,000 tonmes per year, or equivalent to 0.0000000000000000001% of mass per year (er, it's meant to be 19 0's but I honestly lost count)

it would take more than 15 billion years for the earth to gain 1% of mass from spacedust

the moon would not be increasing in size in any appreciable capacity, even over billions of years
You really like to get hung up on one thing while ignoring everything else.

I said space debris, not space dust. You are making assumptions based on observations and data from a relatively short period of time. I am talking about in the very early stages of its birth, some 4.5 billion years ago when it was still being formed. During that time, the orbit and dilation of the Sun to Moon ratio would have been much different than it is today.

Technically the Moon went from not existing to the size and mass it is today in least than 5 billion years.

15 billion years? That is just nonsense. The Universe is not even estimated to be that old. The size of the entire universe was smaller than Earth's Moon is today.

What about the Late Heavy Bombardment about 4 billion years ago, when the orbits were chaotic and still being established? Scientists are still debating this today.
though i used the term 'spacedust', it covers all debris, meteorites etc. - so no change

the late heavy bombardment was as you say, about 4 billion years ago and ended approx. 3.8 billion years ago - after which accumulation of debris would be limited, and would continue to become more and more limited.

it's well accepted that the moon would have been bombarded in this period, but that still leaves a 3.8 billion year gap. it doesn't make sense to assume that the moon would have changed appreciably in size once this chaotic period of formation had occurred - and if it did there'd also be evidence of such an event left on its surface.

15 billion is indeed a long time period, which is why it's folly to assume that the moon has appreciably changed in size since its early formation beyond the early turbulent periods of the solar system.

there's nothing that really points to the fact that the moon would have or even could have changed size meaningfully for the last 3.8billion years.

orbits are also well understood, and it's clear that the moon steadily recedes from earth in its average orbit each year. you're saying it would fluctuate - how do you figure this occurs?
computerhxr said:
I'm sure you're just going to argue anything that I say, so what is the point?

The further you go back in time, the less accurate and more contested the orbits become. Well understood given a short snapshot of observable history where the orbits have been well established and relatively stable.

Again, if you look back at the Late Heavy Bombardment, you can see how the position and course of objects were altered significantly, causing the bombardment to begin with.
a trajectory altering event would require a large collision, of which there's not any evidence on the moon. i'm not contesting that during the formation of the moon it could have changed size, but the nature of the moon makes it very easy to find evidence of impacts that would change its trajectory or increase its mass significantly since then.

if the moon's trajectory fluctuated a lot in the past - by what mechanics did it do so? if it was by collisions there'd be evidence. what are you positing occurred if not these?
 
Local time
Today, 10:51
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,968
Location
69S 69E
6.3 million years ago the moon was 100 miles closer to earth. It would have been significantly bigger to the naked eye than the moon today.

red knows science better than me, he may be able to calculate how big it looked and the number of seconds a rotational day would be at that time ago.
0.042%

the moon is 238, 900mi / 384, 400km away on average, so a difference of 100mi/161km is less than 1%

it takes about 150million years for the distance to change 1% of this current amount at its current rate, but it's important to note that it moved away from earth faster when it first formed, and that when it comes to apparent size in the sky, the less distance between the earth and moon, the more that changes will have an impact on its apparent size in the sky. if the Moon was 100,000km away, a change of 5,000km would be 5%. as it is, a change of 5,000km right now would only be a change of 1.3% - much less noticeable
 

Pizzabeak

Proof of a conspiracy
Local time
Yesterday, 17:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
2,260
Hmm. ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED.

In all seriousness, though, it's been bugging me recently. Why are people/societies so into the number three? While not recommended past high school, the three-argument structure is the essay "formula" for a reason. For example: My neighbor is mean. He kicks cats, slashes tires, and always takes the last cookie. If I'd given only two reasons, it would've seemed insubstantial. Four would seem cumbersome. But why's three the "magic" number?

I play League of Legends. People dodge spells. Typically, they try to vary their pattern on the third time (i.e. dodged left twice in a row, often dodge right the third time).

It's the Holy Trinity, not the Holy Quintet.

I get building things with triangles for structural security because triangles don't deform, but why have multiple cultures gone for pyramids (Egypt, Mayans, Indus Valley) and not... cubes? Or spheres?

In mythology across cultures, there's a division into underworld, middle world, and heavens.

"Rule of Three" in storytelling, e.g. three bears, three pigs, three musketeers. "Stop, Drop, Roll", "Life, Liberty, Happiness".

This is subjective, but I think the triangle looks more elegant than most polygons. Maybe that's just me, but if it holds true for (most?) other people, why?
Some doctrines go ahead and define us as body, soul, spirit, which are three things that can be said to make up the world. Man/woman belongs to this world through his/her body, which can be stimulated by senses, soul is his own world, and spirit is a world exalted above all others. Soul is grounded, in the thick of things, and spirit is heavenly, seeks transcendence. Anyone can call anyone an idiot, quite frankly.

Soul is different from bodily sensation in that the organism/animal can know personally what he/she likes. Spirit more so stems from thought, wherein thinking introduces knowledge or coherence into one's life. The body must be a vessel for it all.

Really, it must just be the science of natural poetry. In the Bible and days of and since, many writers or poets have brought their song to heed a warning or just entertain. It's preached that sins of spirit (pride, envy, greed, wrath) indicate a spiritual disorder worse than weakness via sins of the flesh (gluttony, sloth, lust). The sin of pride is usually considered the worst (Lucifer's sin of believing he could compare and compete with God) although, some sermons or homilies say it's less sickening than a "squalid sensuality" (defilement of a beautiful 'art' of sex "portrayed and compassed" by God, also, similarly, the defilement of the vessels by the incomparable science [art] of Solomon). The theology there might sound eccentric to say the least, but it's an examination of the relative weight between sins, arguing that to define "cleanness" or filth, is intricate and complex when applying it to a system. I wouldn't say any poet is qualified to deliver a sermon, but from the sources we have dating back to the 14th century, scholars can presume that most legends were learned. In those kinds of poems, they're better at highlighting the "texts or scriptures and significant moments within them", than they are at impressing with technique, which is limited, or beauty, and, some of the most popular or interesting poems or narratives attracted little special attention at the time. I think they are all based off the New Testament Beatitudes.

A "tripartite" structure isn't unusual to find in stories, or a "threefold division". Ecclesiates sometimes gets cited in support of it, 'a threefold cord is not quickly broken.'

I'm thinking it could refer to the New Testament parable about the guest expelled from the wedding feast for being improperly dressed for the occasion. God supposedly has a hatred of uncleanness "upon thrynne wyses", which can just be a parallel to it all. Supposedly it's a warning. The three major examples used in this case, are the Flood, destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, and the punishment of Belshazzar. Nebuchadnezzar's fatal punishment was his prideful boast. It all just suggests an emphasis on decent clothing.

This isn't my idea. "That we gon gay in our gear" or "may serve in His sight", connects it to the Holy Vessels and their "gay gear", I suppose, leading to the idea that any Holy word or law must be some kind of elegance or grace.
 

Pizzabeak

Proof of a conspiracy
Local time
Yesterday, 17:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
2,260
Considering that the Earth's gravity is greater than the moon, and it therefore attracts more spacedust than the moon does - and that the amount of weight gained by earth us about 40,000 tonmes per year, or equivalent to 0.0000000000000000001% of mass per year (er, it's meant to be 19 0's but I honestly lost count)

it would take more than 15 billion years for the earth to gain 1% of mass from spacedust

the moon would not be increasing in size in any appreciable capacity, even over billions of years
You really like to get hung up on one thing while ignoring everything else.

I said space debris, not space dust. You are making assumptions based on observations and data from a relatively short period of time. I am talking about in the very early stages of its birth, some 4.5 billion years ago when it was still being formed. During that time, the orbit and dilation of the Sun to Moon ratio would have been much different than it is today.

Technically the Moon went from not existing to the size and mass it is today in least than 5 billion years.

15 billion years? That is just nonsense. The Universe is not even estimated to be that old. The size of the entire universe was smaller than Earth's Moon is today.

What about the Late Heavy Bombardment about 4 billion years ago, when the orbits were chaotic and still being established? Scientists are still debating this today.

orbits are also well understood, and it's clear that the moon steadily recedes from earth in its average orbit each year. you're saying it would fluctuate - how do you figure this occurs?
I'm sure you're just going to argue anything that I say, so what is the point?

The further you go back in time, the less accurate and more contested the orbits become. Well understood given a short snapshot of observable history where the orbits have been well established and relatively stable.

Again, if you look back at the Late Heavy Bombardment, you can see how the position and course of objects were altered significantly, causing the bombardment to begin with.

My hypothesis on how this happens is based on intuition and there will be no specific scientific evidence to prove it. Naturally, you will want to shift the burden of proof onto me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No thanks.
What? I already said years ago, and recently as well, that I come from a background in astronomy, physics, and astrophysics. All the Late Heavy Bombardment did was add craters and minerals to surfaces. The moon was mostly crystalline, so nothing could grow there, and that's only part of the reason why it was, probably, flung off from Earth (most likely during the period where Earth was mostly "magma" during its early formation).

And there's not just a one size fits all model of solar system formation, which can take billions of years. I used to believe in the Big Bang, but there's a chance there could also be a few ideas out there that are true. However, it could be whereso the BB still exists or happened, and that other ideas still occurred too, although in more abstract, metaphysical or esoteric definitions. "Reality is made out of language and meaning", I wouldn't say it's mutually exclusive, nor necessarily unproveable, even if weird or awkward, or that if the BB were proved true for the Standard Model, it wouldn't necessarily rule out other ideas, I would think. I mean, some scientists say the Big Bang is synonymous with God or creation itself, so really, I'm not sure the debate.

Just to say it since you're probably thinking it anyway, I'd think the point would be to get to the dinosaurs or life as we know it, I'd even start at the Neoproterozoic ages. I don't think the orbits were less accurate, just less chaotic. You're only defining it with "stable orbit" as its culmination. These are all celestial movements put into motion billions of years ago.
 

Rolling Cattle

Redshift
Local time
Yesterday, 20:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2018
Messages
82
@CatGoddess
Maybe there isn't huge significance in the number 3. But if you haven't heard already, there's something crazy going on with 4 in the morning. There's even an online museum of all it's strange occurrences.
 

computerhxr

Village Idiot
Local time
Yesterday, 17:51
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
726
Location
beyond space and time
@Pizzabeak

You're funny. I was replying to RB, and not debating you. You and Animekitty actually make a lot of sense.

I agree with you on the orbits being more chaotic. My point was that we make estimations based on observations over a relatively short period of time. We have a greater capacity to accurately predict the course of an object now, than predicting the course of events billions of years ago.

Changing the physical makeup of Earth and the Moon, has some effect on the EM bonds between the two. Is it possible that the motion of the ocean as it follows the moon could slightly alter the trajectory of the planet Earth?

Given the butterfly effect, even small events could have a dramatic affect over long periods of time.

I agree with you on language. This is one of the reasons that I became a Flat Earther. How many different definitions are there for the word earth? Earth could mean the planet Earth, or it could mean soil, or it could mean something else.

Ultimately though, there is significance to numbers and patterns. The first few numbers are the most significant because they lay the groundwork and are the foundation of everything. Everything else is just an mutation that evolves to create an endless diversity of possibilities.
 

Pizzabeak

Proof of a conspiracy
Local time
Yesterday, 17:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
2,260
Sorry, I’d like to make a correction. I think the orbits became relatively stable early on (accretion disk/the planes of orbit must have gotten situated fairly early on due to gravity), I mostly meant that there was more matter flying around before accretions into worlds. In that donut, it was mostly friction causing extra energy. It’s mostly the worlds’s own precession and angular tilt that were affected. The heavy bombardment period also could have been what knocked Venus upside down so it rotates counterclockwise, and Uranus on its side.
 

Pizzabeak

Proof of a conspiracy
Local time
Yesterday, 17:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
2,260

CatGoddess

Active Member
Local time
Yesterday, 19:51
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
299
Rolling Cattle said:
@CatGoddess
Maybe there isn't huge significance in the number 3. But if you haven't heard already, there's something crazy going on with 4 in the morning. There's even an online museum of all it's strange occurrences.
But... Three in the morning!

I don't think there's some sort of "spiritual" significance to the number, just that it's interesting that it's viewed as being a more sound/solid number for certain tasks (i.e. in essay writing, governments, etc.) they always go for three. I was wondering why it's seen as being the best choice for those tasks. I'm inclined to think that it's because triangles are the most structurally sound in nature (a triangle with set side lengths can only have one possible set of angles, so there's no deformation over time in that respect), though I have no empirical evidence for that explanation.

Why is everybody talking about Flat Earth now, though?
 

Rolling Cattle

Redshift
Local time
Yesterday, 20:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2018
Messages
82
Rolling Cattle said:
@CatGoddess
Maybe there isn't huge significance in the number 3. But if you haven't heard already, there's something crazy going on with 4 in the morning. There's even an online museum of all it's strange occurrences.
But... Three in the morning!

I don't think there's some sort of "spiritual" significance to the number, just that it's interesting that it's viewed as being a more sound/solid number for certain tasks (i.e. in essay writing, governments, etc.) they always go for three. I was wondering why it's seen as being the best choice for those tasks. I'm inclined to think that it's because triangles are the most structurally sound in nature (a triangle with set side lengths can only have one possible set of angles, so there's no deformation over time in that respect), though I have no empirical evidence for that explanation.

Why is everybody talking about Flat Earth now, though?
I get the impression that as humans have used language over time, we acclimated to the rule of three for aesthetics. Maybe it shares similarity in the rhythm and rhyme of a poem. I think it almost falls into the same category as parallelism.

I doubt the structures of triangles has anything to do with rule of three in writing.

On a side note, the shape of the globe is the most shameful thing of academics and science. Intellectually, most humans are so wrong about the shape of the globe. We started getting on the right track when we realized it was a pizza, but now there's recent evidence that we live on a donut. But I have always suspected it was more or less a cheeseburger. My cheeseburger theory is really complex and only geniuses could understand it.
 

CatGoddess

Active Member
Local time
Yesterday, 19:51
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
299
Really, @Rolling Cattle? Pizza, donut, cheeseburger... How ethnocentric of you. As a strong and independent colored female, I'm triggered by this racist science. The earth has been shown to be concave by studies that I don't feel like citing, which means it must be a bowl of pho. How else do you explain that it's 70% ocean?

Yeah. Checkmate, you yucky Westerner.
 

computerhxr

Village Idiot
Local time
Yesterday, 17:51
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
726
Location
beyond space and time
Why is everybody talking about Flat Earth now, though?
That was me, because I think it has everything to do with the number 3.

Ugh... How about nothing has any significance or meaning? Proximity, in my opinion is what determines significance.

How would you define significance?
 

Rolling Cattle

Redshift
Local time
Yesterday, 20:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2018
Messages
82
Really, @Rolling Cattle? Pizza, donut, cheeseburger... How ethnocentric of you. As a strong and independent colored female, I'm triggered by this racist science. The earth has been shown to be concave by studies that I don't feel like citing, which means it must be a bowl of pho. How else do you explain that it's 70% ocean?

Yeah. Checkmate, you yucky Westerner.
Look, I didn't mean it was literally a cheeseburger, it's just metaphorically shaped like one. Besides, if anyone were to go outside and taste the ground, it wouldn't taste like pho, would it?
 

Polaris

Radioactive vision
Local time
Yesterday, 13:51
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,085
Earth is definitely cat-shaped, and the cat has three legs.
 

CatGoddess

Active Member
Local time
Yesterday, 19:51
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
299
I'm guessing cat-earth got hit and the fourth leg fell off to become the moon?
 

Polaris

Radioactive vision
Local time
Yesterday, 13:51
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,085
Yes, it got hit by a dog-shaped meteorite. Also known as The Big Woof. Our galaxy has been a bit of a dog's breakfast ever since.
 

computerhxr

Village Idiot
Local time
Yesterday, 17:51
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
726
Location
beyond space and time
I'm totally on board with Cat Earth. Probably why they worshipped cats in ancient Egypt. You learn something new every day.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the cat. And the cat was bored, so the cat knocked a glass of water off of the table, forming the sea.

And God said, let there be milk, so to satisfy the cat, and it was good.

So then God separated the land from the sea, so that the cat could cover its load.

On what day did the 4th leg separate to become the Moon?
 

Animekitty

(adopted potato) INFP - Dio
Local time
Yesterday, 18:51
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,080
Location
subjective
Top Bottom