Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Shop now Shop now
Customer Review

126 of 139 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars astonishing facts but unfounded and illogical conclusions., 28 Nov. 2007
By 
This review is from: Who Built the Moon? (Paperback)
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
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 4 May 2012 10:41:58 BDT
1.38*16^9m / 3.48*10^6m is close to 400 but hardly precise. I wouldn't get too exited.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Sep 2012 14:41:49 BDT
I got more precise figures, typed more correctly and usefully at Wikipedia, and the ratio of mean diameters was 400.87. There is a "fit" of this order of precision many, many times over in the Solar System, as you can see if you read A Little Book of Coincidences by John Martineau. Far too high to fit mere chance.

Thanks for making me check.

Posted on 13 Dec 2013 09:47:05 GMT
R. CRAWFORD says:
"the poo of a giant space fish"... what an amazing and excellent phrase. Brightened my day considerably!

In reply to an earlier post on 12 May 2015 07:05:11 BDT
I. Rose says:
That's it. If I ever set up a rock band, it's getting named: "Poo of a giant Space Fish."
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer


Location: London UK

Top Reviewer Ranking: 8,235,826