Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Too Many Coincidences To Be Chance Alone., 30 Oct 2005
Coincidence that the moon's diameter is exactly 400 times smaller than that of the Sun? Coincidence that the one second arc of the Moon's rotation is exactly 100 Megalithic Yards? Coincidence that the Moon exactly blocks the Sun's disk during a solar eclipse so that the Sun's corona can be studied? Without which much of Einstein's work would not have been confirmed. By the way the Moon is also 1/400 of the distance from the Sun which Isaac Asimov described as being 'the most unlikey of coincidences'. That the Moon is almost exactly 1/4 the size in diameter of the earth (which makes it the largest moon for a planet this size) and without its precise position at present, life as we know it would not have happened? Too many coincidences to accept as pure chance for me. And the fact that so many of the relationships can be expressed in whole rounded integers (within 99 % accuracy)in the metric system which we have blindly accepted as of modern origin which it apparently is not. All in all, an exciting and easy read even for this non mathmatician. The authors conclude that the moon is not a coincidence of blind nature and offer several (3) answers, which they wisely do not force upon us. The most important thing is that they do force us to think a bit more about what we have accepted blindly for centuries just because it seemed to fit the science of the times. Just as the 'flat earth' did before it.
Two criticisms: 1. The book cover, and several areas in the book state that the Moon is 1/400 the size of the moon. This should have read as the 'diameter' of the moon's disk and the Sun's disk for clarity. 2. Page 41 last paragraph states that the Moon's circumference in Megalithic Yards was divided INTO the total of seconds of arc in the earths orbit. It should have read BY the total of seconds of arc as correctly reflected by the answer given. The math is correct and simple and hard to refute.
And by the way, none of these or similar coincidences are found with the rest of the planets or moons in our solar system. Another coincidence?
Perhaps our scientific community should be willing to look a little closer to home for some of their answers as to the origin of our planet and solar system and in particular to the source of our miraculous Moon.
Both thumbs way up on this one. Maybe more is coming?
|
|
|
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
astonishing facts but unfounded and illogical conclusions., 28 Nov 2007
Firstly I'm not sure if I'm a critic or a supporter of this book. I've given it 4 stars because the actual data and numbers that are given are extremely interesting and need to be known by the world. The ratios of days, orbits and diameters, are correct, even if not worded properly: "The moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun" should be "the diameter of" the moon, sun etc.
There is clearly something in this that needs further research, but there are a couple of things that bother me about the book.
I personally will not come to a conclusion about what all this means until I have analyzed it far more thoroughly. I might never come to a conclusion about it ever, unless there is an actual fact that proves or disproves something.
That is my main problem with this book, the conclusions the authors come to, have no evidence to support them, its pure speculation. Don't get me wrong, the planetary mechanics and ratios are amazing, and are far too perfect to be coincidence, but that doesn't mean that people from the future did it all, which is what the authors state is their best theory. Theres just as much evidence to support that idea as there is to say the whole solar system is the poo of a giant space fish.
I recommend everyone reads this book before they come to any conclusion and once they've read it don't just settle with the authors ideas. there are more possibilities than just god, aliens or people from the future. Perhaps the solar system is a living organism or maybe theres a completely natural phenomenon where for some reason not yet known to physics, planets harmonize themselves with each other on many different levels ie size, rotation, who knows?
Once these facts become more well known, everyone from Jehovahs witnesses to star trek fans are going to jump on the band wagon and try to use this to support their views.
What I'm trying to say is, the implications of what this could mean are endless, so please don't dismiss these remarkable figures just because someone says it means we are all slaves of the reptilians, or that these facts prove the plot to the terminator films actually happened.
And no matter what anyones opinion is,
The Earth still rotates about 366 times per orbit of the sun, and has a polar diameter 366.0431 percent larger than the moons.
The moon has an orbital period of 27.32 days and has a diameter 27.32 percent that of the Earths polar diameter.
The suns diameter is 109.2 times the size of Earths diameter, and the distance from the earth to the sun when we are at our furthest from it is 109.2 sun diameters.
if you divide 109.2 by 4 you get 27.3
366 moon orbits equal 10000 days
I could go on and on but the fact is you keep on getting the same recurring numbers and multiples of them again and again:
4
27.32
100
109.2
366
|
|
|
24 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Strange but a very thought provoking argument, 15 Jun 2006
Quite remarkable. I came to this unusual book after it was studied by the National Science Teachers Association and found to have a case that required an answer. The maths used in this book are simple, clear and inescapably accurate. I see one reviewer has suggested (without substantiation) that the authors are in some way numerically illiterate. Not so.
People prefer to see proof of what they already believe to be true and it is obviously disconcerting when a book like this brings up so many inconvenient facts. A growing number of scientists are now realising the dishonesty that exists to protect old ideas. Terance Kealey a clinical biochemist and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham has observed "Scientists actually treat facts the way barristers treat hostile witnesses... it is a myth that working scientists always respect falsifiability. Scientists often ignore inconvenient findings".
Anyone who likes to think for themselves should read this fascinating book and deal with the facts as they stand.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Christopher Knight
by Richard C. ; Bara, Mike Hoagland
by Jonathan Black
by J. Douglas Kenyon
With an Amazon.co.uk Gift Certificate, you can get them what they want (even if you don't know what that is). 
Amazon Home