# Re: earth/moon relationship

Dan Clemmensen (Dan@Clemmensen.ShireNet.com)
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:49:48 -0400

Michael Lorrey wrote:
>
> CALYK@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 97-10-20 20:24:11 EDT, you write:
> >
> > << >I saw somewhere a picture where someone had a triangle so it fit
> > perfectly
> > >inside the earth, and within that triangle, perfectly, was the moon. Is
> > the
> > >earth/moon relationship really like that? I know the earth has been
> > >expanding over its time and the moon has not, so maybe that relationship
> > >existed in the past, but im really wondering about the present, does anyone
> > >know?
> >
> > By picking an appropriate triangle, you can do that with any two circles of
> > any size. So it's true, but means nothing.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > No you cant, it has to be perfect, or rather it has to be the right ratio. I
> > am saying a perfect relationship, with congruent sides, to where the angles
> > of the triangle touch the earth's circumference at a point and the moon
> > touches the triangle at a tangent. If the moon was any bigger or smaller it
> > wouldnt be touching the triangle's side at one point, but rather two or none.
> > Im asking if the earth/moon relationship represents this perfect ratio,
> > either with a plane triangle, or a pyramid.
> >
> > danny
>
> Danny is apparently referring to a tetrahedron, not a triangle or a
> pyramid. Using a rough Earth radius of just under 4000 mi. (3957 mi. on
> average, as the radius at the equator is slightly greater than at the
> poles due to centrifugal stresses), and a rough moon radius of 1080
> miles, a tetrahedron made to fit exactly inside the earth (within a
> couple dozen miles or so), would need a moon with a radius equal to
> 1333.333.... mi., so our moon is a couple hundred miles too small. If
> anyone can call me on the numbers please do.
>
> If these numbers are right, this is a good example, Danny, of how
> "sacred geometry" is bogus because they use bogus math, the don't do
> their homework. I suggest that you do yours so you don't get hoodwinked
> by this sort of stuff.
> --

There is yet another lesson in all these numbers: if you are willing to
specify a very small variance, say one percent, then you can generally
find an "amazing" geometric or numerical relationship between any two
numbers. You just keep trying "amazing" relatonships until one of them
fits. After you find one, you then announce that it's incredibly
unlikely
that your "amazing" relationship is due to chance, without mentioning
that
your "amazing" relationship is one of billions of possible "amazing"
relationships.

This is not to say that all such relationships are bogus. I have a gut
feeling that Bode's law may have an underlying cause based on the
mechanics of the original solar accretion disk.