Yin and Yang: what's its true meaning?

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,798
Likes
8,266
#1
Wikipedia tells us that In Chinese philosophy, yin and yang describes how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another. Many tangible dualities (such as light and dark, fire and water, expanding and contracting) are thought of as physical manifestations of the duality symbolized by yin and yang.

182px-Yin_yang.png

This duality lies at the origins of many branches of classical Chinese science and philosophy, as well as being a primary guideline of traditional Chinese medicine, and a central principle of different forms of Chinese martial arts and exercise, as well as appearing in the pages of the I Ching.

Source: Yin and yang - Wikipedia

* * * * *
I entertain a possibility of this symbol meaning the below GIF image representation.

sun_moon_rotation_5.gif

What do we really know about this symbol? And does what we know appear to be making sense?
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
741
Likes
1,974
#2
What a delightfully imaginative thought process you have, KD. I wouldn't think that the gif is representative of yin and yang (or vice versa) simply because they're not equal. In the symbol, both halves are equal. Way to think outside the box, though.
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
377
Likes
1,503
#3
What a delightfully imaginative thought process you have, KD. I wouldn't think that the gif is representative of yin and yang (or vice versa) simply because they're not equal. In the symbol, both halves are equal. Way to think outside the box, though.
The sun and moon are relatively the same size, or you cannot have a total eclipse.
The day and night are equal on the the two most holy days, at least in the mystery religion.
The black and white duality is also a common theme.

A Spirograph in the sky. What happens if we put a four sided box for the seasons inside a 364.25 tooth wheel?
I honestly dont know, but I bet it would look familiar.
 
Last edited:

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
741
Likes
1,974
#4
"Although the sun's diameter is about 400 times larger than that of the moon – the sun is also about 400 times farther away. So the sun and moon APPEAR nearly the same size as seen from Earth." (earthsky.net)
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
741
Likes
1,974
#6
Well, it's a magical world and since neither of us can validate our opinions, how 'bout we keep the snark out of the discussion. Thanks.
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
377
Likes
1,503
#8
"Although the sun's diameter is about 400 times larger than that of the moon – the sun is also about 400 times farther away. So the sun and moon APPEAR nearly the same size as seen from Earth." (earthsky.net)
Here is a non snark response.
Do you know the odds of the above happening?
They are so astronomical, they prove an intelligent creator.

Do you know the odds for the moon to have an orbit and rotation so we only see one side?
What happens when you times the two odds together?
By conventional science, our moon should not exist.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
741
Likes
1,974
#9
Thank you for that, BStankman. As I said, it's a magical world and I certainly don't have all the answers for the multitude of "coincidences" that make life on our planet possible-and there are A LOT of them. Don't have time to go into depth on all of them atm so I'll just leave you with this for now: "Oxford physicist Roger Penrose said one parameter [for the fine tuning of the universe], the original phase-space volume, required fine-tuning to an accuracy of one part in ten billion multiplied by itself one hundred and twenty three times. [He] remarked that it would be impossible to even write down that number in full, since it would require more zeroes than the number of elementary particles in the entire universe."

Discover magazine wrote: "The universe is unlikely. Very unlikely. Deeply, shockingly unlikely."

"In light of the infinitesimal odds of getting all the right dial settings for the constants of physics, the forces of nature, and other physical laws and principles necessary for life, it seems fruitless to try to explain away all of this fine-tuning as merely the product of random happenstance."-Strobel

I'm not married to any one cosmological theory because, honestly, even the brightest minds don't KNOW. They make some pretty educated guesses based on observation and speculate (sometimes wildly) but what is observable is the multitude of long-shots that did occur in order for there to be life on our planet (ie: gravity, atmosphere, size of planet in exact goldilocks zone, size and distance of moon, life-giving sun, liquid water, etc.). I'm just glad the odds (however astronomical) were in favor of life and that we're here to enjoy it.
 

LetsHak

Member
Messages
27
Likes
97
#10
Speaking of Yin and Yang, I've been kicking around a half-baked hypothesis that there are two types of organisms: Life-creating (Yin) and life-destroying (Yang).

Life-creating/Yin are, for example, the cells of our body. Life-destroying/Yang are, for example, bacteria that decompose formerly alive material -- either for "recycling" or processing by alive cells, as with gut flora.

Aether collectors, such as pyramids, seem to amplify and support the life-creating organisms and suppress the life destroying. There are reports of fruit put under a pyramid staying fresh much longer. I suspect the Egyptian mummies were actually found inside the pyramids, not buried elsewhere as is so often repeated. Lenin's tomb is a sort of crude pyramid. Insects are said to avoid pyramids. Are insects Yin -- literally inside-out animals, with their skeletons on the outside?

Like I said... half-baked. Internet: do your worst. Or best.
 
Last edited:

Tonep

Active member
Messages
80
Likes
181
#11
Do you know the odds for the moon to have an orbit and rotation so we only see one side?

This has never made any sense to me. How can we only see one side when it's rotating? I never put much thought into it because when i think about it for even a little, my brain kinda short-circuits...
 

Tonep

Active member
Messages
80
Likes
181
#13
The same odds for the moon being 400 times closer to the earth but at the same time 400 times smaller than the sun, so subjectively being the same size... close to 0 ;)
that one, i can see making sense but the rotation thing just doesn't work for me, never has, probably never will.
 

LetsHak

Member
Messages
27
Likes
97
#14
Do you know the odds for the moon to have an orbit and rotation so we only see one side?
Kind of makes sense to me if the center of the moon is liquid, like the mass is pulled over to one side. Doesn't explain the exact sun-moon distance-size match of eclipses however. That's a real head-scratcher.
 

Tonep

Active member
Messages
80
Likes
181
#15
Kind of makes sense to me if the center of the moon is liquid, like the mass is pulled over to one side. Doesn't explain the exact sun-moon distance-size match of eclipses however. That's a real head-scratcher.
yes that's definitely a head-scratcher but I still can understand that better than the rotation thing. if the moon is rotating, how can we see the same face or are they saying that the same point on earth passes the same point on the moon each time both rotates? that kinda makes sense but the way they say it is, "the moon always shows the same face/side to the earth." if anything that proves the flat earth theory to me, and im not a flat-earther. or a ball earther for that matter.
 

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
109
Likes
470
#16
From space.com:
Observers on Earth might notice that the moon essentially keeps the same side facing our planet as it passes through its orbit. This may lead to the question, does the moon rotate? The answer is yes, though it may seem contrary to what our eyes observe.
Ya think? I love when explanations try to immediately address the cognitive dissonance of what they're about to tell you.
The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this synchronous rotation.
The rotational period of the moon wasn't always equal to its orbit around the planet. Just like the gravity of the moon affects ocean tides on the Earth, gravity from Earth affects the moon. But because the moon lacks an ocean, Earth pulls on its crust, creating a tidal bulge at the line that points toward Earth. [Infographic: Inside Earth's Moon]

Gravity from Earth pulls on the closest tidal bulge, trying to keep it aligned. This creates tidal friction that slows the moon's rotation. Over time, the rotation was slowed enough that the moon's orbit and rotation matched, and the same face became tidally locked, forever pointed toward Earth.
So which is it? Is it synchronous rotation or is it tidal bulging? Is it both?

If the moon is still "rotating" then why is it tidally locked? How can something rotate when it is always pointed in the same direction?

This is a frustrating topic.

In regards to the OP, some believe that the Sun is responsible for growth and life on the planet, whereas the Moon is responsible for decay and death. Those with alternative cosmologies would say that the Moon produces its own "cold" light at night (not reflected light from the sun) that speeds up necrosis and promotes the growth of fungi. On the other side of the token, the Sun provides light for photosynthesis and for life to flourish. Not sure if I'm totally in that camp, but it may feed into this theory in some ways.
 

LetsHak

Member
Messages
27
Likes
97
#17
I can only see tidal locking working if the moon's gravity is eccentric, as with a liquid/gaseous center. To me, this ties in to the Growing Earth hypothesis, which essentially posits that the Earth is a very young, ever-expanding star. The Moon, then, is an even younger star.


To extend this hypothesis, I suspect planetary bodies go through an inner-to-outer phase change as they grow mass and mature:
  1. solid all the way through, like a rock
  2. liquid center, solid shell
  3. gas center, liquid midsection, solid shell -- I think the Moon is here, which would allow the liquid to slosh around and, being denser than gas, "stick" to the side facing the Earth
  4. plasma center, gas, liquid reaching the surface, semi-solid shell -- Earth is here, I believe the Deluge was when water first breached the solid surface
  5. plasma center, gas surface -- gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus (yes I think these will become stars eventually, as will Earth)
  6. plasma all the way -- star
As a side note, here's some OC that Tim (of TLAV) and I did on the Growing Earth hypothesis back in the day, hope I did it justice -- Neil Adams did a ton of content on this as well:


tldw: The additional mass is coming from the aether. That's also the reason mainstream science will not acknowledge this, as it implies oil/water are renewable, "free energy" is a thing, etc.
 

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
109
Likes
470
#18
To extend this hypothesis, I suspect planetary bodies go through an inner-to-outer phase change as they grow mass and mature:
  1. solid all the way through, like a rock
  2. liquid center, solid shell
  3. gas center, liquid midsection, solid shell -- I think the Moon is here, which would allow the liquid to slosh around and, being denser than gas,
Makes more sense to me than the official explanation. It would allow for "rotation" while keeping the exterior pointed towards earth in the same direction.
 

Tonep

Active member
Messages
80
Likes
181
#20
From space.com: Ya think? I love when explanations try to immediately address the cognitive dissonance of what they're about to tell you.

So which is it? Is it synchronous rotation or is it tidal bulging? Is it both?

If the moon is still "rotating" then why is it tidally locked? How can something rotate when it is always pointed in the same direction?

This is a frustrating topic. In regards to the OP, some believe that the Sun is responsible for growth and life on the planet, whereas the Moon is responsible for decay and death. Those with alternative cosmologies would say that the Moon produces its own "cold" light at night (not reflected light from the sun) that speeds up necrosis and promotes the growth of fungi. On the other side of the token, the Sun provides light for photosynthesis and for life to flourish. Not sure if I'm totally in that camp, but it may feed into this theory in some ways.
the crazy part is rather than dismissing this theory I put it aside to think about later, thinking their theory would make sense later, smh. but theres so much to study/analyze that it's hardly on my radar
I can only see tidal locking working if the moon's gravity is eccentric, as with a liquid/gaseous center. To me, this ties in to the Growing Earth hypothesis, which essentially posits that the Earth is a very young, ever-expanding star. The Moon, then, is an even younger star.


To extend this hypothesis, I suspect planetary bodies go through an inner-to-outer phase change as they grow mass and mature:
  1. solid all the way through, like a rock
  2. liquid center, solid shell
  3. gas center, liquid midsection, solid shell -- I think the Moon is here, which would allow the liquid to slosh around and, being denser than gas, "stick" to the side facing the Earth
  4. plasma center, gas, liquid reaching the surface, semi-solid shell -- Earth is here, I believe the Deluge was when water first breached the solid surface
  5. plasma center, gas surface -- gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus (yes I think these will become stars eventually, as will Earth)
  6. plasma all the way -- star
As a side note, here's some OC that Tim (of TLAV) and I did on the Growing Earth hypothesis back in the day, hope I did it justice -- Neil Adams did a ton of content on this as well:


tldw: The additional mass is coming from the aether. That's also the reason mainstream science will not acknowledge this, as it implies oil/water are renewable, "free energy" is a thing, etc.
I heard a theory that is entirely opposite that one. Stars are younger than planets, and planets are younger than moons. Moons being whats left after all the energy has been expended in a energy ball(my term)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top