/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16129667
The odds are 1

>>16129667
not sure

im sure some nasa nigs can use cosmology data to calculate odds

>>16129667
The odds are literally astronomical.

>>16129733
>>16129684

>>16129748
astronomical actually means big
cant go higher than 1

>>16129767
Retards

>>16129667
What's the intelligent design reason for making them "the same size"?

>>16129772
Fuck. Off. Faggot.

>>16129771
t.

>>16129767
100% means 100/100 which is 1

About the same odds as the moon being just the right mass and distance away to create a tidal zone that doesn't splurge up and make it impossible to have a beach house.

>the posts
anon said the odds are 1 because it happened so the odds are 100%.
But obviously OP meant what are the odds of something like that happening in general.
Before it occurred the odd's weren't 1 >>16129684

The Moon used to be closer to the Earth and its orbit is gradually getting larger, making it appear smaller from Earth each year. This is happening very slowly but over time it will result in the ending of total solar eclipses whereas in the past, total eclipses were more common and on average lasted longer.
Your real question should be what is the probability that the apparent size of the Sun and the Moon in the sky would be similar enough for a total eclipse to be possible but not long lasting during the time period in which we live.

>>16129667
>They are the same size
No they ain't.
What are the odds that this happens coincidentally?
Irrelevant. If it was closer to something like the moon disc is 2/3rds the sun disk, then you would say "They're related by the mathematics of thirds. What are the odds this happens coincidentally?"

>>16129781
we have a sample size of 1 so from observation intelligent life needs a moon. especially since it's tied into how we came about. seems it's necessary.
also moons eclipsing the sun isn't so rare >>16129675 happens in other places in our solar system. and if you were to look at the event from there, it would look ~ the same.

>>16129675
>>16129789
I don't think you understand that Ariel would be much larger relative to the sun compared to how Earth's moon is.
So at the time Earth was formed, before it had a moon, what are the odds a moon would come along the eclipses the sun perfectly?

>>16129792
>I don't think you understand that Ariel would be much larger relative to the sun compared to how Earth's moon is.
and even if this point is moot, the latter question still persists.

>>16129792
Ariel orbits at exactly half the distance that the Moon does. Yet it's smaller. Still, if you were to find yourself in its shadow as shown here >>16129675 you'd see it "perfectly" matching the sun. As long as you are in the umbra it's a total eclipse from your vantage point (in the umbra). it wouldn't look larger than the sun, it would look just like our Moon looks, "perfectly" covering the sun.

They're not the same size. Sometimes we have an annual eclipse, meaning the sun isn't covered completely and there's a bright ring outside the moon. It's because the moon is in an elliptical orbit around the earth and the earth likewise is in an elliptical orbit around the sun.

how can I simulate this shit? like a game or something. I want to play with different sized moons on different sized planets and see it from the surface of the planet.

Delete this thread.

Moons are moons.
Eclipses, eclipses.
It proves simulation.

look, so you get it at an intuitive level. if there was only penumbra, you'd always see a ring of fire around the Moon. light would leak from around it and make an umbra impossible, it would be placed way above you.
the most perfect it can be aligned, from your POV, is when the umbra is like a meter wide. if you'd be able to somehow follow it at that speed, and fit perfectly in that meter wide umbra, it would be the most perfect match between sun and moon.
if you increase the umbra, it would still look about the same. you'd need the umbra itself to become fucking huge (Earth wide?), so you start notice the moon is larger than the sun.

and this umbra size varies on Earth as well. depending on where the moon is. the shadow cone pokes Earth more or less. So if we see it as "perfectly matching" at 150km wide, and at several hundred km wide, and it all starts with the smallest width of say 1 meter (theoretically, practically you might have a minimum larger diameter for the effect), then that's quite the fucking leeway for "perfectly matches the sun".

>>16129772
It is done as a sign. It's much easier for an omnipotent being to communicate with sentient beings he created through vague signs than it is to communicate in a more complex way, like say, speaking to them

>>16129810
Universe Sandbox. It's on Steam.

>>16130037
does it realistically scale the celestial bodies as seen from the surface of another?

>>16129792
The odds are exactly 1.
We have 1 measurement. 1 outcome.

Imagine being a bayesian in 2024.

The Bye-Bul was right. We are the center of the universe. The only planet.

>>16130077
My eyes shine like eclipses am I the one?

Fuggin NPCays

>>16129667
The moon was once far closer to the Earth, so it wouldn't have happened.
The moon will one day be far farther away from Earth, so it will cease happening.
We just happen to live in the era between those points where approximately full occlusion is possible. But that is not a consistency in Earth history nor its future.

kek

https://youtu.be/5NQmp1Dg6Rg?t=268

>>16130093
>The moon was once far closer to the Earth, so it wouldn't have happened.
cringe heliocentrist

>>16129667
the real question is: what are the odds that you would be alive during this perfect period of the sun and moon being the same size?

The moon is slowly getting further from the Earth. Soon, solar eclipses will no longer occur as the moon will not be able to block out the sun from our perspective.

So yes, two circular objects from a fixed perspective will eventually be the same size if one is moving away from you.

>>16130187
it's actually becoming an even better fit over the sun, as time passes. once the tip of the shadow cone is above Earth you get the fire ring around the moon.
this eclipse had a shadow of about 150km wide or something and was moving at almost exactly Mach 2, which gave you around 4 minutes of totality. the farther away it moves, the smaller the shadow, the less totality time you get.
when the moon's shadow will be only 100 meters wide, you'd get some 140ms of totality, but if you'd snap that picture in that interval, you could brag that it's the most perfect match any human ever witnessed.
I predict richfags will chase the small shadow in fighter jets at Mach 2, sometime in the future when the moon gets far enough. so as to have time to enjoy it.

Similarly, it is a coinsidence that moon always faces the same side towards earth ;)

>>16130093
Human beings just happen to live in the perfect time regardless

>>16130223
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/moon-life-tides/

>>16129792
>what are the odds a moon would come along the eclipses the sun perfectly?
The moon's distance from the earth is variable. There are plenty of solar eclipses that don't actually cause totality. They're called annular solar eclipses, wherein the moon doesn't eclipse the sun perfectly at all.

>>16130221
Correct.

>>16130187
>what are the odds that you would be alive during this perfect period of the sun and moon being the same size?
Pretty high. There are more humans right now than ever before in history, so the chance of a person being alive is pretty high.

>>16130256
holy shit that is so beautiful

>>16129902
>It is done as a sign. It's much easier for an omnipotent being to communicate with sentient beings he created through vague signs than it is to communicate in a more complex way, like say, speaking to them
Why would that be easier?

>>16129675
You are coping. As seen from Uranus the sun is like 1/10th the size compared to what we see from earth Earth, and also much dimmer.
Earth is extraordinarily unusual with its single large moon so neatly aligning with the sun's angular diameter.

>>16130268
>As seen from Uranus the sun is like 1/10th the size compared to what we see from earth Earth
Not if you're standing directly in the shadow of the moon, which is also how eclipses work on earth. The moon only covers the sun in totality across a very narrow band where the shadow appears on the surface.

>>16130268
>Earth is extraordinarily unusual
no it isn't in this regard. sun is farther away from Uranus but also Ariel is quite small compared to our Moon >>16129800
from what I see in the Uranus picture, that looks like umbra not penumbra.

>>16130046
It's a simulation so there's a limit on its realism but you should be able to do what you're asking for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ltYZvsyo4g

>>16129772
the 9 code

>>16129667
The fat dude across the road is the same size as my thumb, what are the odds that this happens coincidentally?

>>16130293
This analogy is perfect. Hopefully the retards will understand now.

>>16130274
>Not if you're standing directly in the shadow of the moon
???
that doesn't change the angular diameter of the sun. and anyway that shadow on uranus is huge, probably the size of the entire united states, so there's no coronal glow or anything like that, just a dim light, not even as bright as a low-watt lightbulb, in a black sky that goes out momentarily.
Literally no comparison.

>>16129667
>What are the odds that this happens coincidentally?
mate, this is by far not the most surprising coincidence in science and astronomy

>>16130311
until I simulate it in Universe Sandbox I'll point you to the other argument against it, the anthropic principle one. seems the moon's effects might be required for life so you get a certain mass that has a certain volume and composition as to have a similar albedo (night activity) at some distance from the Earth, so life pops up in the first place, or accelerates us, intelligent life looking at it and wondering wtf.

>>16130341
>until I simulate it in Universe Sandbox
just calculate the respective angular diameters for the given distances. You don't need software simulation for that, you can do it with a pen and paper. (or can you?)

>>16129800
>you'd see it "perfectly" matching the sun
If you could somehow stand on the surface of Uranus, you would see Ariel engulfing the sun. It's apparent diameter would not match the sun's apparent diameter closely at all.

It's sort of funny how hard the eclipse mindbroke americans. It's like watching cave men have a fit over a rainbow or something.

>>16130461
It's sort of funny how hard the United States mindbroke Europeans. It's like watching cave men have a fit over cave Syrians they invited in.

>>16129800
>it wouldn't look larger than the sun, it would look just like our Moon looks, "perfectly" covering the sun.
100% wrong. pic related shows the relative apparent diameters of aries (large grey circle) and the sun (small white circle) as would be seen from Uranus' surface at the time of the 2006 eclipse.

>>16130378
>>16130384

Sun is 0.532 Moon 0.548 so a smidge larger. on Uranus Sun is 0.027 and Ariel is 0.35 (if I didn't fuck it up) so yeah clearly larger. my bad, for some reason missed how much larger Uranus is vs Earth, when considering Ariel's shadow.

anyway even if, last time the Moon perfectly covered the sun, at apogee, was almost 1 billion years ago, before plants existed. since then there have been eclipses where the moon was smaller than the sun.

>>16129667
This really boggles my mind. I mean okay yes everything is chance blabla yes but even with this perfect earth, solar system, moon keeping balance, oceans tides, whatever, how can the fucking moon's size and distance fit so perfectly to cause full eclipses? its fucking crazy

>>16129667
Pure concidence. I wouldnt worry about it anon.

>>16130688
but it doesn't tho. never did, was always a type of eclipse, there have always been annular eclipses as well (before humans ever existed). there never were only total, but mixed with annular ones. you're talking about a subset of our solar eclipses. conveniently discarding the other type, for some reason.

>>16130221
aren't literally all round moons in our solar system tidally locked to their parent? Pluto and Charon are mutually tidal locked which seems even more special.

>>16129667
Congratulations OP. You finally noticed. Took you long enough

>>16129785
I have literally been saying this for years. Even made a shitpost about it here like a decade ago to troll the Atheist fags.

>>16131798
You do know your Atheism is just another form of religion right?

the alignment is cute ngl but I don't see it as a wink from God, that's silly.
what is the difference between a high probability event and a low probability event? God? really?
what is God chance-wise? where does it start being God and not random chance? when that small chance event doesn't do anything for your narcissistic self?
also the Moon being "thereabouts" is not the low chance you might think.

>>16129667
>put a thumb up
>fiddle with the distance around a bit
>holy shit it blocks sun perfectly! what are the odds

NIGGERS TONGUE MY ANUS

>>16131808
>what is God chance-wise?
You'd just consult a Bayesian equation.

However I'm not aware of any religious texts which actually predict the relative size of the moon so it seems like even setting up the equation requires some model of divine psychology that's certainly not obvious.

>>16131832
you'd need some connection between the two bodies, moon and star. curious if habitable zone distance is close to some ratio to star size. that would lock you to some aproximate value for at least how the star would look in the skies of planet with life.
supposing a moon is required for intelligent life, and certain effects are needed then it starts going into it required mass and/or distance (our Moon dumps about 3TW or something in our oceans). and you start getting some ranges for the moon.
when factoring albedo and other stuff you might suddenly not be so much in God chances territory. even if cute coincidence, it's not as low chances as many are seeing it today.

>>16130223
Yeah, the perfect time is between 1.4 billion years ago and 600 million years from now. Praise Jesus.

>>16130518
The size of Uranus has nothing to do with it.

>>16129667
The odds appear to be not too bad. To get an amazing eclipse, you need the moon as seen from the planet to be at least as large as the apparent size of the Sun, but not so much bigger that it also blocks the corona. Our moon and the Sun, as viewed from Earth, USUALLY meet those criteria, though sometimes the moon's apparent size is lightly smaller and we get an annular eclipse.

Looking around the solar system, Mercury and Venus have no moons, so no eclipses. We have one and it does what it does that we already know about.

Mars has Phobos and Deimos, both too small in apparent size to create an Earth-like solar eclipse.

Looking further out... (and laying aside the problem of having no lace to stand and look at the eclipse on the gas giants, maybe you can stand on top of a blimp or something.) At Jupiter, of the four major Jovian moons, Callisto should appear larger than the Sun, but would not block put all of the Corona so you'd get the sort of solar eclipse we're talking about with a view of the corona -- plus Callisto's orbital plane is closer to that of Jupiter around the Sun, so you'd get eclipses more often (eclipses are common on Jupiter, often the pictures of the planet will have the shadow of one or more moons crossing it.) The other four major moons would block the corona during a centered solar eclipse.

don't worry about it dawg its all good. pure coincidence. what a bizarre thing it would be if some entity created our world in a way that there were clues left for us to find. that would just be ridiculous. I would not entertain such a notion.

>>16132023
Saturn has 4 moons that would produce eclipses covering the Sun but not the Corona -- Pandora, Prometheus, Janus and Epimetheus.

Perdita around Uranus is another one, though out at that distance the eclipse would be a tiny thing, not the spectacle we get on Earth. Still, we're not talking about how cool it looks, we're talking about the moon size and distance allowing for an eclipse that does what ours does. Perdita does that.

Hippocamp at Neptune would appear just barely bigger than the Sun and would produce a tiny facsimile of a total eclipse on Earth.

Kerberos and maybe Styx around Pluto would work also, but watching a total eclipse of a bright star would not be exciting. Eris has a satellite but it would appear too big. There are any number of asteroids with "moons" that will be about the right size at some point in the asteroid's orbit to count, and almost uncountable possible eclipses caused by one moon and seen from another, but that's stretching the point, I think.

To sum up, there are a handful of moons that look close enough to the same size as the Sun to cause the sort of eclipse we see on Earth. It's not true for most moons and their planets, but then most planets that have moons have at least one that gives them Earth-like eclipses with the Corona circling the dark moon that is covering the Sun.

>>16132025
So God is a no social skills sperg?

>>16132025
>some entity created our world in a way that there were clues left for us to find. that would just be ridiculous
Correct, that would be ridiculous. Even more ridiculous would be people believing that it is true, despite having zero evidence in support of it.

>>16132052
>despite having zero evidence in support of it.
what do you mean? low chances are always proof of God

we are the children of Luna and Sol.

>>16132053
>low chances are always proof of God
Why? Because you said so?

>>16132108
it was a joke you autist

>>16132112
Jokes are supposed to be funny