Moon's Sidereal period = Sun's Synodic period

[Drax Spacex]

Moon's Sidereal period = Sun's Synodic period ?   Yep.  

The Moon's Sidereal period is the time it takes the Moon to complete one orbit around the Earth with respect to the stars.  The Moon's Sidereal period = 27.32 days.

The Sun's Synodic period is the time it takes for the sun to complete one rotation as viewed from the Earth.
A common value cited for the Sun's Synodic period is 27.27 days.  (This is not at the sun's equator but at the latitude where most sunspots occur.)

Is this almost equivalence just a coincidence, or is it a necessity for some obscure reason to establish a stable Solar system, or is it a consequence of intelligent design?

Sort of like the angle subtended by the sun (0.52°) being approximately the same as that subtended by the moon as viewed from Earth (0.53°).

Inquiring minds ...

[Archmonoth]

4 hours ago, Drax Spacex said:

Is this almost equivalence just a coincidence, or is it a necessity for some obscure reason to establish a stable Solar system, or is it a consequence of intelligent design?

 

Think of it as a shadow, and shadows allow dust to gather, or plants (and planets) to grow. Its like learning orchids grow in low sunlight, and just happens to be 45 degrees from the window. Lagrange points, describes this pretty well, if you aren't familiar with them already: Lagrange point - Wikipedia (The wiki article covers a lot of Earth-Sun-Moon interactions)

 

As far as intelligent design, my answer is no. In fact only having 1 moon is kind of a bad design, Jupiter has 70 moons, and it can handle all sorts of asteroids without them potentially affecting its orbit, or destroying most of the life on the planet. Also, if there was a time when the Moon's cycle changed, would this no longer mean it is intelligently designed? Patterns are everywhere, and they don't necessitate intentional or intelligent design. 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Christopher S.]

There are far too many "almost equivalences" to fairly lean in the direction of this being more than a coincidence. Take Helium and Hydrogen, for example. I mean, relative to all the other atoms, they're almost the same, although with respect to each other, one has twice the neutrons as the other. Thus, they behave different and are subject to their own unique interactions. I feel the same can be said about all of the orbiting bodies in the Solar System. They can be categorized as planets, one descriptor and one fact which sets them apart from other bodies distinctly. They are however at different distances, are comprised of different enough materials, and are moving at different enough speeds to say that we are disconnected, independently orbiting bodies with only small and coincidental effect on one another.

Maybe the similar age of the bodies and some thermodynamic, entropic constant is to blame for the similarities? I mean, the Sun is 4.6bil years old, the Moon is 4.5bil y/o. Hmm. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Christopher S.

[Drax Spacex]

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being." - Sir Isaac Newton

[Archmonoth]

4 hours ago, Drax Spacex said:

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being." - Sir Isaac Newton

People are awestruck by large moving things, symmetry, beauty etc., it doesn't make them intelligent. Newton is rather arrogant claiming such a system could ONLY proceed from intelligent design. How could anyone know this? His observation is contradictory also, because it is derives from a completely inclusive vision of design, and allows for no comparison with a non-intelligently designed universe.

Even Newton had his dogma, or perhaps wishful thinking on his part.  

 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Archmonoth