While the material on this page is not strictly part of Alan Bennett’s Solar Geometry, the Earth’s moon should also be considered as evidence that it is not of natural origin.
Solar Eclipses: Perfection in design?
Have you ever considered that our moon is a near perfect sphere, precisely distanced and aligned with the sun in a way that creates two identically sized spheres in the sky, 93 million miles apart, and capable of creating a total solar eclipse? This only happens because the moon is 1/400th the size of the sun and 1/400th the distance of the sun, and perfectly aligned on the same plane as the Earth and Sun. What are the odds of that happening “naturally?”
(Not to scale)
Synchronized orbital and rotation periods: Perfection in design?
Another unusual characteristic of the moon is that its orbital and rotation periods are perfectly synchronized so that we always see the same view of the moon’s surface as it revolves around the Earth, century after century.
There are no adequate theories of lunar creation
No theory adequately explains the origin of the Earth’s moon. It’s a pairing unlike any other in the solar system. The Earth’s Moon is the fifth largest in the whole solar system, and is bigger than the planet Pluto. Our moon is far more massive relative to Earth, for example, than the satellites of all other planets, except for Pluto, whose moon, Charon, is half its size. The Earth-moon system also has an unusually high angular momentum, the sum of the our planet’s rotational velocity and the speed at which the moon orbits the Earth.
Three theories exist for the moon’s origin:
The “fission” theory proposed that Earth spun so rapidly in its early years that the sun’s gravity eventually yanked off a chunk of an increasingly elongated Earth that became the moon. This theory might explain the moon’s lack of a large core and the oxygen-isotope similarity, but calculations show that the Earth would have to have had four times its present angular momentum, a lightning-fast rotational speed that astronomers cannot justify in their models.
The “capture” theory proposed that the moon was a wandering planet that had been snared by Earth’s gravity, but this theory suffers as well. The idea that Earth’s gravity caught a rogue planet might explain the compositional differences between the two bodies, but then this doesn’t explain the moon not having its own regular-sized core or the similarity of the oxygen-isotopes if the two formed in different parts of the solar system. Finally, the chance that a speeding planet would gracefully ease into Earth’s embrace rather than slam into it or career off into space is too remote for consideration.
The “coaccretion” theory proposed that the Earth and the moon formed independently but side by side from the same material that formed all the planets of our solar system. This theory led the pack through the 1970s, because it doesn’t require a low-probability event like capture. But today this theory faces the same problem regarding the core. It’s very hard to imagine the two bodies growing together but somehow the Earth magically gets all the iron in it and the moon doesn’t get any. Even more troublesome is that the theory cannot account for the enormous angular momentum we see in the Earth-moon system today.
Lunar orbital cycles are related to the Earth’s rotation
So we have no satisfactory explanation for the moon’s origin, but just as with the relationships of other planets to Earth, we see a very unusual relationship of the moon to the Earth:
The lunar orbital period of 29.5306 earth rotations, when divided into 1447, a prime number, equals 49, or 7 squared, continuing the theme of sevens seen with Venus and Mars.
The relationship of Earth to Venus and Mars is more interesting yet.