The reason they say it's a coincidence is because this wasn't always the case.

The moon is drifting away - In many years to come it no longer will be the same relative size as the sun. The coincidence is that it's the right size now whilst we're around to observe it.

Its a pretty huge coincidence that human beings can observe this phenomenon at the exact moment we happen to be alive on a cosmic calendar where we have only been around a couple minutes.

There are many surprising coincidences that happen every day, the moon is just one of them.

Yes, but it is a BIG coincidence!!!

Are you being seruois?

So what?

What's your evidence that any of the scientific information we have that has been studied over and over and over and over again is false?

You realize this is an object that everyone who has the right vision can see right? You realize this is an object that any space program can verify exists right? You realize when you go out at night if you live in a non-light density place you can see this object right?

You realize this object has been seen for centuries and millennia wayyy before any technological innovations capable of misleading people right?

I fail to see what your point is

It is a big coincidence. But that's what it is, a big coincidence.

Seriously dude , this is the dumbest thing i've seen written in a while. I pray you have a cite for this statement, cause I want to see this. But if you dont then tell me how it's possible that if the earth has an influential gravitational pull on the moon and likewise the moon pulls on the earth, that the two can drift apart?

I'm on my phone at the moment, but this explains how : http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12311119

Double reply because I can.

It sounds ridiculous till you read about it.

The wiki article on it has plenty of sources linked : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Tidal_effects

Im just going to link this here /r/cringeanarchy

You might want to try a source other than Google Answers if you're looking for a deeper understanding of science. MIT even offers free courses online.

If you do some actual research, you'll learn that it seems most likely that the moon formed from a collision between Earth and something else, and that over the billions of years since the moon formed, it has been gradually moving away from the planet.

This means that when it first formed, it was much closer. This would have produced:

• Higher high tides and lower low tides

• Eclipses that more than completely blocked out the sun

Millions of years into the future, the moon will still be there, but it will be farther away. Lower high tides and higher low tides, and an inability to completely block out the sun will be the order of the day, then.

In any event, what is the conspiracy you are suggesting?

I am suggesting that the moon could be man-made or "being"-made. It could have been built as a monument, in the same sense that we have built numerous monuments on Earth for no other reason than to do it. Like a feat of engineering.

Building an object with that kind of accuracy and precision, to prove to future generations that humans were once smart enough to pull it off.

Also, despite all of science's claims about what the moon does or how it was formed, a lot of those are just guesses at this point that will surely be built upon over the next thousand years as science evolves and reinvents itself (as it has been doing for centuries). It is arrogant to believe that we have all the answers right now, just because we happen to be at this point in the timeline.

a lot of those are just guesses at this point

We actually know and can prove that the moon is, indeed, moving away from the planet.

Also, don't confuse "guesses" (as in, I have no fucking clue so let's throw some shit out there, aka "religion") with scientific theories, which have a very substantial grounding in fact, evidence, and repeatable experiments.

science evolves

It certainly does that. It is the only manner of explaining nature that is willing to look deeply into itself, to challenge itself, to admit that it was inaccurate, and to modify itself to be more accurate.

Compare those behaviors to any other belief system. The only one I've seen that is remotely capable of and willing to do the same sort of self-evaluation is Buddhism.

But don't discount the inaccuracy as a failure of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is reasonable and sound. It is humanity's understanding of nature that is flawed. Science, the Scientific Method, helps us figure nature out.

It is arrogant to believe that we have all the answers right now

No shit. Find one scientist who says we have all the answers right now.

According to Sitchin, the moon was Kingu, the giant water planet Tiamat's largest of seven satellites. Then Tiamat was smashed into pieces by the planet Marduk, the results of which created the Earth and the asteroid belt.

Fun stuff!

Human existence is the largest scientific coincidence.

I've had this thought before, the moon fascinates me a lot.

But I also have the thought that if things weren't just the way they are we wouldn't even be here to ask the question in the first place. So maybe it really is a coincidence?

One intersting thing I've read that I need to look into more is that the density of the moon is much lower than expected based on its size and gravitational effect. Some think it may be hollow or not a big rock like we think.

Every other coincidence (literally in the universe) is more feasible than a space rock (the moon) being set at:

• the exact size (through seemingly random collisions)

• the exact correct distance from Earth

• the exact correct distance from the Sun

• the relation between the above specs when compared to the exact size of the Sun

• beings living on the planet able to comprehend and view the overlap (during an eclipse)

Besides the "Big Bang" (which is still little more than a working theory), is there any bigger coincidence in the Universe?

And I am aware of the coincidence needed for Earth to even have life, to be at the correct distance from the Sun, etc...

Of billions of planets, it seems mathematically feasible that one of the planets would hit all the right conditions. Now take that planet that hits all the right conditions and ADD that perfectly sculpted, correctly sized moon, to be observed by the beings on said planet.

That is one massive fucking coincidence.

Or... the moon was made. Honestly, the second has severe implications, but makes sense when willing to suspend everything you were ever taught about what "could" or "couldn't" be possible.

the exact size (through seemingly random collisions)

the exact correct distance from Earth

the exact correct distance from the Sun

the relation between the above specs when compared to the exact size of the Sun

I think you make this out to be more startling than it is, and portray it as a bizarre intersection of four random variables when it seems more likely to be only one random variable which is actually pertinent. Take a star, a planet, and it's moon, of any size. The planet can be any distance from its star. With these conditions as given, there is always a value for the distance of the moon from it's planet which will yield the desired condition of the moon and star having the same apparent size from the view of the planet. If the moon were half it's size, just halve the distance to the planet. I only see one independent variable, and it having a particular value based on the dependent variables is not that odd.

what purpose would an artificial moon have?

What purpose do the Pyramids have? Or the Washington Monument?

They are structures that were made simply because they could be made. The moon could be a kind of monument.

I dunno, just spit-balling here.

Four of those are the same thing. The exact size is relative to the exact distance which is relative to the size of the sun which is relative to the distance from the sun.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there may be more to the moon than it seems but don't overstate your case you fucking nut job.

Reading comprehension.

They are not the same thing at all.

The moon almost perfectly blocks out the sun. This has to do with the size of the moon. AND the distance between the sun and moon.

Even NASA agrees with that.

It's the ratio that matters. You could set any three of those variables at any given number and adjust only the fourth to create the effect.

If the size of the sun were different, the other 3 ratios would need to be adjusted. If the size of the moon were different.... If the distance between the sun and moon were different.... If the distance between the moon and Earth were different.....

Oh believe me, I'm very much on board with you.

Do you have any information on the density of the moon? Are you familiar at all with what I was mentioning in my first post?

Yeah, I have heard about the moon ringing like a bell when hit. Crazy stuff.

I have read this book. It's kinda a hard read and there is a lot of math. Check it out. http://www.amazon.com/Who-Built-Moon-Christopher-Knight/dp/1842931636

It is not a coinkydink

...God does cool stuff like this...

The moon is a receiver which projects onto us the reality matrix being broadcast from saturn.

This explains the Hexagon...

You can produce a similar hexagon by spinning a bucket of water at the right speed.

Prove it

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/news060515-17.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQzLY17ncWM

Saturn is a gas giant, this was done with water.

'While this does not prove that Saturn's hexagon definitely occurs via the same processes as in our experiments, it does demonstrate that it could do so, and suggests other things for scientists to look for that may help to improve our understanding of Saturn's atmosphere.'

I don't know how anyone would be able to know that or prove that. Is there more behind this theory? Any actual evidence that points to those conclusions?

I'm not onboard with it, but I do find it fun/interesting to contemplate. Supposedly, it has to do with the Saturnalian religion/death cult. Something about the planets are a 3rd dimensional representation of a 4th or higher dimensional something.

There stuff out there. Icke (which is a bad word here) talks about it quite a bit. Fun stuffs.

You are talking about 1 subset of a subset of the false moon theory.

Its not all about reptilians, its not all about saturn, its not all about dimensions.

The base theory is: the moon and its motion is too perfect for chance. Thats it,other people may add on to this belief, but you can't say: Supposedly, it has to do with the Saturnalian religion/death cult. Something about the planets are a 3rd dimensional representation of a 4th or higher dimensional something.

Thats the problem with skeptics, they only think black or white, this or that, "r/conspiracy" believes in reptilians

Plus judging by your 'supposedly', 'something about', and 'something' you have probably conflated several theories.

Chill. He asked what theories are out there and I gave him an example of one that is pretty comprehensive and I never said anything about reptiles. Why are you getting so defensive? Why are you putting words into my mouth which is exactly what you're accusing of me doing to the sub?

You think that's weird? The entire Solar System is almost geometrically perfect. Check out Jason Martineau's work on this, he discusses a lot of the geometric relations between the Moon and Earth: http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Coincidence-Wooden-Books/dp/0802713882

"Random Chance" is the scientist's way of saying "God did it". There are some truths in this world that will always remain a mystery. Is there a God? Life after death? Do we have Free Will? Is there a reason the Moon, Earth, and Sun fit together in perfect geometry? We'll never know for sure. It's what the Gnostics call the Divine Mysteries.

Geometry is what everything breaks down to at the smallest level. Or so I read in http://www.amazon.com/The-Source-Field-Investigations-Civilizations/dp/1455828521

who made moon???

w h o

h

o

a lot of those are just guesses at this point

We actually know and can prove that the moon is, indeed, moving away from the planet.

Also, don't confuse "guesses" (as in, I have no fucking clue so let's throw some shit out there, aka "religion") with scientific theories, which have a very substantial grounding in fact, evidence, and repeatable experiments.

science evolves

It certainly does that. It is the only manner of explaining nature that is willing to look deeply into itself, to challenge itself, to admit that it was inaccurate, and to modify itself to be more accurate.

Compare those behaviors to any other belief system. The only one I've seen that is remotely capable of and willing to do the same sort of self-evaluation is Buddhism.

But don't discount the inaccuracy as a failure of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is reasonable and sound. It is humanity's understanding of nature that is flawed. Science, the Scientific Method, helps us figure nature out.

It is arrogant to believe that we have all the answers right now

No shit. Find one scientist who says we have all the answers right now.

Yes, but it is a BIG coincidence!!!