Solar eclipse? Ain't that a weird coincidence?
Earth is the only habitable planet that we know of.
Earth is the only planet with intelligent life that we know of.
Earth has an unusually large moon for its size.
The size of the moon / its distance from earth is weirdly enough perfect so that the moon just covers the sun from time to time. Not too big, not too small.
Does this seem like a likely coincidence?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
twitter.com
bump
>Earth is the only habitable planet that we know of.
Nope.
you know for sure there is another one?
if I could teleport you for three days to any planet ever discovered, would you do it?
not so sure anymore, are you?
Scientism has somehow convinced people that it's down to pure chance.
I also find it funny that people think the lunar eclipse is caused by the earth's shadow. If you actually watch one like pic related, you can see that the "shadow" comes in from the wrong side and disappears from the wrong side. The moon lights itself, this is confirmed by measuring the temperature of moon light which is colder than shade.
wat are you even ...?
wat?
Look it up brainlet.
autism incarnate
>No argument
the earth is flat and the moon is a cardboard cut-out carried by three pegasi attached by a shared intestine. i know you don't have an argument, so don't bother responding.
Not that guy but I would do it.
Either I prove there's another habitable planet or I'm the first person to die trying to prove it.
Its a win/win.
Same reason I'd try to befriend any public appearance of aliens if I could.
The heliocentric model is just as ridiculous as that.
Without another couple of universes to compare to we won't be able to say if this is an odd occurrence or just what tends to happen
A few million years from now the moon will drift far enough away so that total solar eclipses will be impossible. So it is even more coincidental that we happen to live during a period of time where total solar eclipses are possible. That is why we should continue to study the moon, the solar system, and distant systems. To see if this really is a rare occurrence or if there is something we have missed.
For a farfetched example, a theory exists or existed that the moon was form when a mars sized rock collided with Earth and a large chunk of debris ended up in orbit. It is possible that if such theory was true. Another theory is that life on Earth originated from somewhere else, and arrived here by space debris. It is possible that the event that delivered life to earth could have been the same one that created the moon. Or even possible that the conditions for life weren't possible until the collision started some tectonic tier chain reaction that would lead to life. If large moons only form from such collisions, and such collisions have a greater chance for kickstarting life, then it is possible that the majority of all planets with relatively large moons harbor life, in which case the vast majority of life in the universe may experience eclipses.
Again, I'm just talking out my ass for the sake of providing an example.
who knows, maybe some alien a billion lightyears away is currently wondering how it can't be coincidence that Splargh is the only planet in it's solar system to not only the only habitable planet they know of but also has this beautiful ring system that sparkles like a billion diamonds at night from the reflected sunlight
>I'm going to invalidate the status quo by making statements without any supporting evidence whatsoever
Uh huh, how's that working out for ya?
I've actually watched a few and the direction in comes in makes perfect sense if you assume the distances and positions the heliocentric model presents, the fact that the Moon is moving into the Earth's shadow and account for your location on the sphere Earth.
>another couple of universes
Aren't you going a little overboard with this?
I think a couple of other planets that harbor intelligent life would be sufficient for a comparison.
yeah, so what? doesn't change the fact that the size/placement of the moon is still weird
given the size of the universe all kinds of weird shit "might" be true
but if you have a sample of one, and this sample shows some highly unusual property that you wouldn't really expect - it's weird to say the least
There's actually a moon of Jupiter that has the same ratio of size to distance from the Sun, so it would make total eclipses if it crosses in plane.
Anyway, the fact that total solar eclipses can occur isn't that special. Annular eclipses can also occur, when the Moon is further away in its orbit and cannot completely cover the disc of the Sun.
What's that? You didn't know about annular eclipses? I guess you shouldn't just repeat arguments you hear without researching them then.
Look at the supposed shadow being cast on the moon by the earth during a lunar eclipse, do you not see how it's on the wrong side if that were true?
Moonlight being colder than shade is well known and proven countless times. You can do it yourself.
I have never once seen the shadow cast on the moon be on the wrong side. I have never heard of moonlight being "colder" than shade either, and haven't looked either, but I do suspect I will find a lack of scientific or academic studies supporting that claim
>Look at the supposed shadow being cast on the moon by the earth during a lunar eclipse, do you not see how it's on the wrong side if that were true?
You do realise that the motion of the Moon though the sky is caused by the rotation of the Earth, which has nothing to do with the shadow or the lunar eclipse?
>Moonlight being colder than shade is well known and proven countless times. You can do it yourself.
The flaws in the testing have been pointed out countless times and I'm waiting for summer to do the definitive test.
>I have never once seen the shadow cast on the moon be on the wrong side.
Explain pic related then.
> I have never heard of moonlight being "colder" than shade either, and haven't looked either, but I do suspect I will find a lack of scientific or academic studies supporting that claim
Thousands of people have proven this with scientific experimentation.
>You do realise that the motion of the Moon though the sky is caused by the rotation of the Earth
No scientific proof the earth is moving, sorry.
If it weren't then the shadow would be on the otherside, moron.
>Ain't that a weird coincidence?
Yup.
Huh?
It's not the earth's shadow you brainlet, you even think it turns the moon red for goodness sake.
>It's not the earth's shadow you brainlet,
Then what is it?
>Explain pic related then.
Your location on the ball Earth when the moon is entering Earth's shadow.
Light through our atmosphere. Why do you think it is so much dimmer than a regular full moon?
Has to be the moon's own light, although we don't know what the moon actually is.
>Your location on the ball Earth when the moon is entering Earth's shadow.
That doesn't make any sense.
>Light through our atmosphere. Why do you think it is so much dimmer than a regular full moon?
Kek. You'll believe anything without actual proof.
>Has to be the moon's own light, although we don't know what the moon actually is.
So you can't actually explain any of this? The phases of the Moon, lunar eclipses, the polarisation of moonlight, parallax, all completely unexplained.
To summarise, we could take your (non-existent) model which doesn't explain anything or we could accept that the Earth does move and all these things can be explained simply. Hmmm.
>That doesn't make any sense.
I'll draw it up for you, give me an hour or so, I need to eat breakfast too.
All we know is the earth and the sun are nowhere near as involved as we have been lead to believe. Much better to have a model that can't explain something than one that tries to and gets it completely wrong.
Go for it.
>All we know is the earth and the sun are nowhere near as involved as we have been lead to believe.
And how exactly have you proven that?
>Much better to have a model that can't explain something than one that tries to and gets it completely wrong.
And what does it get wrong exactly?
We just live in the times when the moon is roughly the correct distance away for that to happen.
And how exactly have you proven that?
The sun is not the source of the moon's light based on its temperature as well as the moon appearing during day time.
>And what does it get wrong exactly?
Everything.
>The sun is not the source of the moon's light based on its temperature as well as the moon appearing during day time.
>as well as the moon appearing during day time
Do you EVEN consider the fact we are on a fucking ball and the Moon is orbiting us?
It's easy to explain under the globe Earth heliocentric model.
Light doesn't have a temperature. Unless you mean the so called color temperature but that has nothing to do with heat.
I used to believe that. It's now absurd to me.
>The sun is not the source of the moon's light based on its temperature as well as the moon appearing during day time.
Light doesn't have a temperature. You would understand that the Moon should appear in the daytime sky if you understood the model.
>Everything.
How completely fucking useless. Why don't you try answering the question. Give a real example of something it gets wrong, not bullshit about temperatures.
Ur a fag lol
There's a couple important things to remember.
First, not to scale.
Second, the Earth's shadow is bigger than the Moon where the Moon passes through it. This allows for a few different appearances as the Moon enters and exits the shadow depending on where the Moon is in the tilt of its orbit.
The horizontal lines represent the path of the Moon's orbit, top middle circle the Earth's shadow and the bottom the Earth. Remember they would be in line with the Sun normally, this representation works because it is on paper but if you modeled it in 3D you'd have to take account for this.
Anyway, observer is on the North pole to start, Moon's orbit is right to left horizontally. Rotate 90 degrees to the equator and the Moon's orbit looks vertical, top to bottom, the way the Moon appears to enter the shadow has also changed.
Continue rotation, etc.
Maybe you should start believing again. It seems you actually regressed in intelligence.
The absolute truth! Nice 9619445 get btw!
the chances that the moon and the earth are the same distance apart is astronomically low
>Solar eclipse? Ain't that a weird coincidence?
No. Earth isn’t the only place that has them.
>Earth is the only habitable planet that we know of.
>Earth is the only planet with intelligent life that we know of.
There’s a chance that other Earth like planets exist in our galaxy.
>Earth has an unusually large moon for its size.
Sure
>The size of the moon / its distance from earth is weirdly enough perfect so that the moon just covers the sun from time to time. Not too big, not too small.
It actually isn’t perfect. Because of how the moon orbits the earth, you are lucky to see a solar/lunar eclipse twice a year. When there is a solar eclipse, it’s possible to have a partial, annular or total eclipse. Total eclipses are hard to witness unless you are lucky enough to be on the path of the eclipse. Totality doesn’t last all that long either.
The moon is also slowly orbiting away from the earth. Total eclipses will become rarer over time.
wut?
I'm not sure if this is bait, if i'm a retard, if you're a retard or some combination of three.
Are you trying to say the moon is not the same distance from the earth compared to the distance from earth to the moon ?
As in the distance from A to B is not the same as B to A?
>>Earth has an unusually large moon for its size.
>Sure
So does Pluto, for that matter.
Can I wait a couple years before giving you an answer to that?
We're going to have a couple more space observatories soon which will be able to get measurements on the atmospheres of some of those exoplanets.
I'd like the planet I choose to at least have a breathable atmosphere.
One more condition.
No matter what, after the three days my body must be teleported back to Earth, no matter what condition it is in.
So if I die it will be apparent how I died. Suffocation, drowning, freezing, roasting all look different, as does being torn apart and eaten by a creature.
That way even if I don't survive we would learn something about the planet I was sent to.
His question was rhetorical, you autistic mongoloid.
kek
>What is the rotation of the Earth?
>Coriolis effect
Research helps disguise the fact that you are a brainlet
You can't into geometry, can you?
>There's actually a moon of Jupiter that has the same ratio of size to distance from the Sun, so it would make total eclipses if it crosses in plane.
As viewed from... where? The surface of Jupiter?
>you even think it turns the moon red for goodness sake.
Let's see if you are smart enough to figure out why pic related is, in fact, related.
With minimal due respect, you decidng to be stupid is not my problem.
>It actually isn’t perfect. Because of how the moon orbits the earth, you are lucky to see a solar/lunar eclipse twice a year.
Oh shit. Thanks I didn't know that.
I thought solar eclipses occure every day.
see the bit he mentions about annular eclipses. The moon can have a fairly wide range of angular sizes due to its eccentricity. Now, assuming we need a significantly-sized moon for higher life forms (which there is some fairly compelling evidence for), then orbital mechanics/densities of material will dictate that the angular size is about that of the moon, up to fluctuation. I would like to think it isn't just a coincidence, but it does seem plausible that it is. This is about the only weird coincidence I can think of which can't be explained in terms of 'we wouldn't be here to notice otherwise'.
see pic related too
>Has to be the moon's own light, although we don't know what the moon actually is.
Don't you see how you're assuming that Earth can't move and that therefore the moon must produce its own light -- this proves nothing because it all rests on your assumption.
"Habitable" means "conditions we evolved under".
Charon is relatively larger.
"Only planet with intelligent life". Some days, I wonder. Usually after reading the newspapers or Veeky Forums.
You yourself noted that the "fit" is only approximate. When the Moon is at its farthest, we one get annular eclipses. I know of at least one time when it was so close that the umbra pinched off in the upper atmosphere. Groundsiders only saw an annular eclipse, but up in the stratosphere where astronomers in a NASA jet were following the track, it was total.
It IS a coincidence that we are around at the right point in time to watch total eclipses. The Moon is gradually receding about an inch a year (easily measurable thanks to the retro-reflectors left by astronauts) and, eventually, there will be no more total eclipses.
Honestly its egotistical fools like you that are the easiest to manipulate, because being decieved and having your ego massaged are one and the same
Out of the infinite set of habitable planets ours has a moon this size.
apparent retrograde motion, which you can see with your own eyes, prove it does
>letting your cereal get all soggy with warm milk
not trusting anything this complete fucking RETARD tries to say
Yes, it is a coincidence. The universe is so mind-bogglingly large that eventually something with a “low chance” would happen. But honestly I could point at any planet and find interesting, unlikely phenomena.
Isn't it possible that the moon's distance from earth and the earths distance from Sun occured so that an eclipse like you described is possible? It's all about ewuillibrium
>First, not to scale.
You see, this is the problem. You cannot create an accurate model from the beginning, so any conclusions you draw from the model are automatically flawed. In this case it's not so much the scale (particularly the ridiculously small shadow), but the fact you're trying to draw a 2D model that requires 3D space.
And in doing so, you ironically end up drawing a flat earth. Regardless, no one will be looking at the moon in the manner you describe in your 2D example, you need to prove this in 3D and you won't be able to because it's impossible.
You mean thousands of cranks have made experiments and then came up with some ass backwards explanation. I wish trolling was bannable offense.
>Earth has an unusually large moon for its size.
speculation
speculation
spec
spec speculation
NO IT'S NOT WEIRD
>Out of the infinite set of habitable planets ours has a moon this size.
UMM-- THIS IS AMAZING !
WE HAVE "THIS" SIZE !
>my gf says it too
doesn't notice oatmeal hard granola character needs to get soggy
>yer bane
pleas actually thinking for yourslef will only lead to bad grades and hassles from your peers. just write the answer (((they))) say and be a good social security number and you will get your survival credits. When you find what they are teaching you is self contradictory just go with it and write the answer they say is correct, it helps you be a good mind slave
habitable = unusual
intelligent =unusual
moon size = unusual
distance = unusual
you were saying ?
i always enjoy a partially lit moon high in the sky on a sunny day. when i see the rays, sometime i cant help but triangulate.
Sorry religioustard, did someone contradict your heliocentric faith?
Science doesn't care about your feelings.
If you were placed in front of an uncontacted jungle tribe and forced to live with them for the rest of your life you still wouldn't be able to explain much less prove geocentrism to them you militant atheist cringelord.
You wouldn't need to explain anything, geocentrism is a self-evident truth.
Have you been to space?
I doubt it exists like you think it does, otherwise we would have actually gone there by now.
It's not my problem if you can't visualize it in 3D
.....This kind of nonsense is a bit better than when the big meme was Thorium I guess...
Here I have done it to scale for you now.
There is actually a legitimate mistake in the demonstration though. I'm of two minds as to whether to tell you or let you work it out by yourself.
The problem is that intuitively it doesn't seem like a mistake.
I really fucking hate you /x/ and /pol/ cockroaches
I read a few of your posts and...
How many levels of delusion are you under? Honestly now.
You assume that the earth is the center of the solar system at least. Which doesn't make sense since a geocentric model results in major problems with orbital observation.
You assume we haven't even been to space, which results in a question of what the hell you think the satellites you can see from the ground are. You assume we haven't been to space despite local yokels building rockets capable of reaching suborbital flight using powdered aluminum and ammonium perchlorate as a fuel.
You assume the moon is unusually large and therefore the theia model is wrong (Which makes no sense given the geological data from lunar asteroids and samples we've collected. You assume it's more difficult than it is to escape the earth, which it isn't. And you assume space is something other than a vacuum.
Either you're trolling, or I missed some great dumbing down of Veeky Forums in my 6 year absence...
there's a thing called the anthropological principle. A planet where human life couldn't exist is not one we could be talking about. It's like the idea of being the fastest sperm.
If earth didn't have such a large moon it wouldn't just be hard to see at it would be a completely different planet doing a completely different orbit. Life even intelligent life could possibly evolve there for all we know but it wouldn't be as we know it.
probably not though. they would be more asteroids and comments on the planet without the moon there. Probably not a big increase but as the dinosaurs one big astroid is all you need.