> It was also the very first image I was actually not embarrassed to share - https://imgur.com/a/t9b1Uug

I was goofing around with the ciechanowski moon model and noticed that either this image or ciechanowski's simulation is flipped 180 (mirrored not rotated).

https://ciechanow.ski/moon/

So I googled moon images to see which one might be flipped (it would be amazing if the ciechanowski model was inverted) but after looking at about 100 images, 90/100 or more seem to be composites based on the same image. Not just that the moon presents the same face, but all the google results look based on literally the same image. So what if that image is flipped?

On an oblique note, I assume google reports such repetitions to almost any search— I've noticed there's a web dark pattern for results repetitions; see Amazon and Netflix. And AI results appear to be an obscenely amped-up repeater.

I'm interested in repetitiond news too: take Google news without any personalization— how the web may create an appearance of copious information that's actually very limited, and maybe very biased or completely wrong— e.g., Mandela Effect.

For example news of U.S. foreign affairs is routinely absurdly biased and narrow, such as the new leader in Syria leading "rebels" as in SW rebel alliance and not noting we've got a $10,000,000 bounty on his head for being a terrorist.

(Ask what you can do for Russia, not what Russia can do for you)

I keep second-guessing my own perceptions, like I'm cherrypicking, but the effect seems rampant, where very narrow and obviously contestable views are repeated as truisms and appear as such across many outlets.

I just saw a documentary called "The Program" which one more in and endless series of hype products about UFOs— this one tries to politicize the topic as a huge coverup a la JFK.

But what seems funny to me is term UFO! It's a fascinating term in its own right as it is used as a determinative noun based on an acronym where the key trait is "unidentified". In the truest sense all studies of UFOs must reveal nothing, by definition. And they do reveal nothing. As did this documentary. You may have never noticed, but nothing is something!

The moon is sort of like this: the biggest nothing in world. Does it even matter which is right (vs left vs correct) view?— I can't be bothered to look up. Besides some guys went there and all they found was rocks. Who would have guessed?! They brought some back and they've been completely forgotten about and misplaced out of boredom and irrelevancy.

It was more interesting when the noon could still possibly be green cheese. Now it's just orbital mechanics— a celestial pinball machine. A giant fusion reactor pours energy out across a gradient and somehow gives rise to everything we are. (Yawn, I'm sleepy).

Newton on gravity:

The last clause of your second Position I like very well. Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I beleive no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.