Re: earth/moon relationship
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 03:34:40 -0400 (EDT)

In a message dated 97-10-22 01:54:08 EDT, you write:
> 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.

Since the Earth is/has been expnding, that would mean that perhaps in the
past the relationship was accurate (given that the moon has been the same
size since then, seeing how its solid cold, it appears that way), I wonder
when the date of that was.

<< > 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.
> -- >>

No, sacred geometry uses correct numbers, true sacred geometry. Why would
they use wrong numbers/equations? I was referring to a picture at a web
site, thats all, they obviously just did it to look cool, i wanted to know if
it was a correct relationship.

>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.

Do you mean the disk that formed the planets? What is Bode's law? I feel
the same way, I also believe there's a lot going on in saturn's rings, given
the braided rings, and god knows what else. Oh, there's also high voltage
bursts emanating from saturn that is synchronistic with a specific place on
the ring.