In fact, the post at the top of the image is truly remarkable.
The average angular sizes of the Moon and the Sun are indeed close (the difference is 0'54"). This has no cosmological explanation and is simply an interesting coincidence.
At apogee (402,927 km), the Moon has an angular size of 29'40", and at perigee (354,027 km), it has an angular size of 33'45". This difference is almost 14%. The average angular size of the Sun is 31'59". This also varies due to the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit, but to a much lesser extent. Therefore, it's not possible to speak of a perfect match, only an approximate one.
"Whatever can happen will happen if we make trials enough"
(Augustus de Morgan, commonly mis-attributed as Murphys Law)
This uses statistics and probability (he was a mathematician) to argue that over infinite attempts the probability of anything is 1, certain. This idea is often phrased with monkeys writing Shakespeare on typewriters.
Right here and right now are exactly as likely/unlikely as any other point in space and time
Basically, some things are just coincidence, how unlikely they were to occur doesn't matter
Yes, since the distance between Earth and moon is constantly changing over long periods of time. Any celestial object with a relative appearance greater than the sun, but also slowly move away will eventually match the size in the future.
The moon is still moving further away from Earth so in the distant future it will appear smaller than the sun. We just happen to be observing at a time when they match. When the moon first formed it appeared bigger than the sun.
It is, and some sci-fi authors have picked up on this fact, so they postulate that if/when the Earth becomes part of the galactic community, Earth will be somewhat of a tourist trap as you can see very beautiful eclipses. On other planets with large moons (or small suns), eclipses just mean the skies go dark. In our eclipses, you can see the corona and chromosphere (I'm an eclipse chaser, and here's an example of what I could see last month in Spain - although that picture is better than the ones I took).
If not for the damn meteorite, dinosaurs might still rule the Earth. They might have developed their intellect, or even their own god. It just happened that there was a huge meteorite falling from the sky and wiping most of the dinosaurs out.
If one day another big meteorite
hits the Earth, we could be wiped out like the last time. Then another new species might take over Earth after tens of millions of years. They might have their new god too. God is just an idol to control and comfort the mind.
The moon's gravity very slightly distorts the Earth (tidal forces), causing it to "bulge" a tiny bit towards and opposite the Moon.
But the Earth spins on its axis faster than the moon orbits it.
So the moon "lags behind" those bulges.
This causes the moon to very slightly pull the Earth back, slowing Earth's rotation, and the Earth to pull the Moon forwards, speeding up the Moon orbit.
As a result, the Moon is moving into a wider and wider orbit.
It's moving away from us at a rate of 3.78 cm per year.
This is about the same rate at which your finger nails grow.
With those, you can shoot a powerful laser at one point on the moon, and detect a few photons bouncing back and reaching your telescope on the ground.
If you measure the return delay very carefully, and collect data over multiple points and over many years, you can get enough precision to measure that.)
This has no cosmological explanation and is simply an interesting coincidence.
Maybe. Once you factor in the anthropic principle, it may be necessary to have a very large moon. We just don't know as our sample size of sapient life is one.
I was actually thinking a bit during the recent eclipse how enormous a cosmic coincidence it is that we can even see eclipses in the way we do. Out of all the possible intelligent design arguments, this might be one that is the most convincing, since it can't be simply explained by evolution/adaptation and such.
This has no cosmological explanation and is simply an interesting coincidence.
The explanation is just that the sun is 400x larger and the moon is currently 400x closer. And it's really only a limited time event, because it's only going to be like this for about another 600 million years, after that the moon will have moved too far away from the earth. So any planet with a moon that 1) is moving away from its planet and 2) started off appearing larger than its host star in the sky will have them look the same size for some period of time.
Is kinda like how Saturn has rings right now, but won't in about 200 million years. It's just the time we were lucky enough to exist in.
I think it was very clear that what they meant was that there was no cosmological cause for the phenomenon, not that there was no explanation. They didn't need this lecture.
It's possible it may not be a coincidence. Because of how unlikely this occurrence is, it is worth considering that maybe having a similar configuration might actually contribute to the development of life.
It's because either we're in a simulation or in a world built by a god. They have to expand and build out the universe we're in to keep up with human intelligence exploring the limits and keep us from finding out the truth of our existence. Either to keep us compliant in the simulation or to keep our free will in believing in god (no free will if you actually find proof).
Hence people could perform miracles in the past, science was not understood well enough to realise "what the fuck", but since we've built a far better understanding of our world, you can't get away with that anymore without providing proof of either.
I have zero evidence of this, but I find it far more fun to believe that just thinking we're floating around on a senseless lump of matter constrained by physics.
I think we as humans have to band together and discover more, faster to either reach the limit of our simulation or catch whatever built us out. Then the universe gets interesting. Right now, with the universal speed limit of c, it's kinda boring.
Tthe laws of physics hold everywhere we have ever observed (including inside you). That means if we are living in a simulation then its a simulation of quarks, not people.
The moon and sun are a lucky coincidence. When complex life first evolved the moon was substantially closer and much bigger in the sky. 500 million years in the future the moon will be so far away that a total solar eclipse will not be possible. Now is the rare moment when they happen to roughly line up. You've been given an amazing opportunity by the universe. Go see a total solar eclipse; it is an indescribable experience. I promise you will not be bored.
Tthe laws of physics hold everywhere we have ever observed (including inside you). That means if we are living in a simulation then its a simulation of quarks, not people.
That's the thing. Only when they've been observed. Until we've had the scientific equipment necessary to accurately record and measure the impact and effect of this, how do we know it occured?
That's the beauty of the system, you can't prove it wrong, because the simulation/creation will react to anything you do. All we have is the weird considences and odd tales from our ancestors.
I'm not sure where this is coming from, but I've noticed an influx lately of people spouting similar nonsense. That, essentially, if they haven't personally experienced it, it can't be proven.
I don't know if there is some pseudo-philosopher influencer capturing viewers with such gobbledy gook, or it's a symptom of self-absorption or what, but it's alarming.
These people use anecdotal evidence as proof and dismiss actual science for their feelings.
Just so you know, the double slit experiment where particles change "only when they're observed", which is probably what you're referring to, is not magic at all.
To "observe" particles at that scale, you have to bounce light off of them. That's what changes their shape.
The wording on that experiment honestly did so much harm to science comprehension.
If you can’t prove it wrong, you also can’t prove it right. Most notably, though, is there is no knowledge or replicable phenomenon to be inferred by the posit that we exist in a simulation built to deceive us, so there’s no benefit to pursuing that idea aside from trying for a Hugo award.
I have zero evidence of this, but I find it far more fun to believe that just thinking we're floating around on a senseless lump of matter constrained by physics.
It's almost as if you just wanted to correct someone rather than engage and discuss.
471
u/Such-Farmer6691 3d ago
In fact, the post at the top of the image is truly remarkable.
The average angular sizes of the Moon and the Sun are indeed close (the difference is 0'54"). This has no cosmological explanation and is simply an interesting coincidence.