How the Moon has created, saved, & helped Humanity prosper.

[_Lemmie]

I love good traditional science.... instead of it corrupted by politics and ideology.

You were doing okay, right up until then.
If you mean that, then make your posts consistent with it.

[_Gunnar]

My first exposure to this topic was probably Isaac Asimov's collection of essays in The Tragedy of the Moon. In this collection of essays he approached the topic from at least two different directions: how the existence of the moon might have hindered our development, and how it might have been essential to our existence. I will have to read that collection of his essays again soon. It should be available in most public libraries, as Asimov was a very popular author of both science fact and science fiction. I highly recommend it!

[_ldsfaqs]

My first exposure to this topic was probably Isaac Asimov's collection of essays in The Tragedy of the Moon. In this collection of essays he approached the topic from at least two different directions: how the existence of the moon might have hindered our development, and how it might have been essential to our existence. I will have to read that collection of his essays again soon. It should be available in most public libraries, as Asimov was a very popular author of both science fact and science fiction. I highly recommend it!

Ya, Bill mentions how it seem's to have been necessary to our development, because it created an ecosystem that "changed" thus providing for the ability of evolution, diversity, etc. which is necessary for survivability, adaptation, etc.

I like how he mentioned in the "Climate Change for Dummies" video how Kansas 10,000 years ago was partially an "Ice Sheet", yet today it's a "prairie", because the earth started warming and the ice sheet retreated to the North to even expose Canada as not having Ice. I mean think about that.... the earth changes, and that wasn't that long ago at all for such a major change in weather. Thus, this whole thing about climate change is a bunch of crock. Even if man is contributing to something, we are a LONG WAYS off from there being any serious problem from it. A 100 years from now we will be almost 100% clean tech, save some of the developing world which will need to be in their own evolution and development.

[_Gadianton]

The moon is a right-wing satellite. LOL!

[Guest]

Ya, double planets aren't what is most rare, it's the position, distance, sizing, the fact that the moon is able to totally block the sun (seems anyway) etc.
What was also interesting is how the last 50 years or so we've been "listening" to the stars, and yet NOTHING has traveled and bounced to us that indicates any other intelligent life. How the conditions of the earth's solar system etc. created the perfect environment for life to florish and evolve.

Double planets as close (or closer) to each other in size as the earth/moon system probably are quite rare. However, for a moon to totally black out the sun in an eclipse is not rare at all. What is rare about our moon is how close it is to being just barely the right size and distance from us to totally black out the sun. The chances that it could have had a bigger or smaller angular diameter from our perspective than that are 50/50. Almost all of the moons of Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are easily big enough to totally black out the sun from the perspective of their primary planet (or even from the perspective of most of the other moons of the same planet) whenever they pass between their planet and the sun. For most of the existence our earth and moon, the moon was more that just barely big enough to entirely black out the sun as seen from the earth's surface.

It is true, however, that the total lack of any discernible signals from any other sentient beings in the galaxy, so far, does indeed raises legitimate doubts about the existence of other sentient beings anywhere nearby.

[_Gunnar]

I like how he mentioned in the "Climate Change for Dummies" video how Kansas 10,000 years ago was partially an "Ice Sheet", yet today it's a "prairie", because the earth started warming and the ice sheet retreated to the North to even expose Canada as not having Ice. I mean think about that.... the earth changes, and that wasn't that long ago at all for such a major change in weather. Thus, this whole thing about climate change is a bunch of crock. Even if man is contributing to something, we are a LONG WAYS off from there being any serious problem from it. A 100 years from now we will be almost 100% clean tech, save some of the developing world which will need to be in their own evolution and development.

I'm sorry, but when it comes to climate change, Bill reveals himself to be at least as scientifically illiterate as you are.

[_The CCC]

Ya, double planets aren't what is most rare, it's the position, distance, sizing, the fact that the moon is able to totally block the sun (seems anyway) etc.
What was also interesting is how the last 50 years or so we've been "listening" to the stars, and yet NOTHING has traveled and bounced to us that indicates any other intelligent life. How the conditions of the earth's solar system etc. created the perfect environment for life to florish and evolve.

Double planets as close (or closer) to each other in size as the earth/moon system probably are quite rare. Howecer, for a moon to totally black out the sun in an eclipse is not rare at all. What is rare about our moon is how close it is to being just barely the right size and distance from us to totally black out the sun. The chances that it could have had a bigger or smaller angular diameter from our perspective than that are 50/50. Almost all of the moons of Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are easily big enough to totally black out the sun from the perspective of their primary planet (or even from the perspective of most of the other moons of the same planet) whenever they pass between their planet and the sun. For most of the existence our earth and moon, the moon was more that just barely big enough to entirely black out the sun as seen from the earth's surface.

It is true, however, that the total lack of any discernible signals from any other sentient beings in the galaxy, so far, does indeed raises legitimate doubts about the existence of other sentient beings anywhere nearby.

It isn't perfect.
SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baily's_beads

I think the distances are just too great. If beings on a planet 100,000 light years away sent a signal 98,000 years ago we couldn't receive for another 2,000 years. !00,000 light years is about as far across as our galaxy.

[_Gunnar]

It isn't perfect.
SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baily's_beads

Of course not! But it is still rare for it to be that close. Not that there is any profound significance to that, however. Long ago, the Moon was closer to us and more completely blacked out the sun during eclipses, and as time goes on it will gradually recede and will less completely black out the sun during eclipses.

I think the distances are just too great. If beings on a planet 100,000 light years away sent a signal 98,000 years ago we couldn't receive for another 2,000 years. !00,000 light years is about as far across as our galaxy.

True, of course, but there are probably millions of stars in our galaxy similar to ours and potentially observable by us that are at least 100,000 years older than our own sun, as well as every age between that age and ours, and also closer to us than 100,000 light years away. This would tend to increase the odds of detecting signals from other civilizations, if life is at all common in the universe.

ETA: Of course if another galactic civilization were 100,000 or more light years away, we would be unlikely to detect any but the most powerful signals deliberately broadcasted in the hope that some other civilization somewhere and sometime would detect it, like we did using Arecibo radio telescope dish in Puerto Rico. That awesome instrument is said to be sensitive enough to detect a signal transmitted by any similar device from anywhere else in the galaxy.