5 ms·

Exactly. An observer in space can see a solar eclipse on the surface of the Earth just like we can see lunar eclipses. Like https://youtu.be/rwNc5aK3dBk https:/

by lutorm 7y ago

Exactly. An observer in space can see a solar eclipse on the surface of the Earth just like we can see lunar eclipses. Like https://youtu.be/rwNc5aK3dBk https://youtu.be/rwNc5aK3dBk

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nosianu 7y ago
No, not "exactly". You and OP completely ignore the point the author makes. In a lunar eclipse the moon actually really does get dark - no light falls on it any more. There is no point anywhere from which you will be able to see a moon that receives any light from the sun, because it doesn't. During a solar eclipse on the other hand there is no change whatsoever to the sun, it continues to shine just the same. Only those under the shadow of the moon see a change. Just to clarify, I'm merely relaying the point of the author. I have nothing to say about the use of language, he chose the words that he did and some may find them confusing and some may not. The way he expressed it is separate from the point made though, and OPs comment ignored that point.
- shmerl 7y ago
  The point wasn't very relevant though, regardless of the confusing language of "real". Obviously eclipse is measured relative to the observer, so how is it relevant that "the sun continues to shine just the same"? It's not relevant to the concept of eclipse, and doesn't make it any less real.
  - svat 7y ago
    What the author of the email is pointing out is that: * A (total) solar eclipse is merely a statement that you, the observer, happen to be present in a small region of a few miles' radius, wherever the moon's shadow happens to be. If you imagine yourself flying around in space (or even just driving around in a car), you can very easily get out of this region and see that the sun continues to shine, etc. * A (total) lunar eclipse is a statement that the earth's shadow falls on the moon. No matter where you are in space, this is a statement about the amount of light reaching the moon's surface, independent of where the observer happens to be. You may not care about this, deciding that your vantage point as an observer is all that matters (whether your view of the sun or moon changes, respectively) by saying "Obviously eclipse is measured relative to the observer", but the author cares, and it's an interesting point. Obviously he's not claiming that a solar eclipse isn't "real" in the sense that you can't see it; only that it doesn't correspond to any astronomical event that is observer-independent (and relevant to more than a small region of the earth). Edit: Another way of saying this is that despite the name, a "solar" eclipse is a statement about (a small region of) the earth -- that's the part that gets less light; the sun is unaffected by a solar eclipse. On the other hand, a lunar eclipse is really a statement about the moon; the moon really does get less light during a lunar eclipse, as the moon is what is in shadow.
- rimliu 7y ago
  > no light falls on it any more If that were the case, we would not see the Moon during a lunar eclipse. Earth's atmosphere bends light, so some at the red end of the spectrum still reaches it. And Sun still shines the same during lunar eclipse too. Only those under the shadow of the Earth see the difference. It is just that Earth's shadow is big enough to cover the Moon and that's it. Neither eclipse is more or less "real" than the other one.
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    The question is not what is more real in an absolute sense, the thing is that in a lunar eclipse the Moon is in the shadow (so it’s an objective, observer-independent fact about the Moon) while in a solar eclipse it’s the observer, not the Sun, that is in the shadow: the event is not “objective” in the same sense.
    - shmerl 7y ago
      The shadow from the Moon is on Earth though. I think the post has some difficulty grasping that eclipse is always relevant to the observer, not to something becoming totally deprived of light.
      - kgwgk 7y ago
        Of course, and that’s why an observer in another planet would say: “look, an Earth eclipse” (or at least they would if the Moon was big enough for the event to be easily noticeable for them or if they paid enough attention, but that’s not the main point). What we call “a lunar eclipse” is a solar eclipse in the Moon. What we call a solar eclipse is a solar eclipse on Earth. We can also observe solar eclipses (total or partial) on other bodies in the solar system. I agree that both are real, with a real shadow. But for a (total) lunar eclipse the full Moon is in the shadows, while in a solar eclipse a little shadow traverses the Earth surface.
        shmerl 7y ago
        I think the post's confusion comes from trying to focus on where the shadow falls, while the concept of eclipse really is focused on what is obscured from view. I.e. calling them lunar and solar is consistent in the later sense. In case of lunar eclipse, the view of the Moon is obscured by the shadow of Earth. I.e. Sun's light is blocked by Earth, so it doesn't reflect back to Earth from the Moon. In case of solar eclipse, the view of the Sun is obscured by the Moon itself (which throws shadow on Earth), i.e. you don't see direct light from the Sun blocked by the Moon. Both are pretty real and both are called eclipses.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by lutorm 7y ago

Exactly. An observer in space can see a solar eclipse on the surface of the Earth just like we can see lunar eclipses. Like https://youtu.be/rwNc5aK3dBk https://youtu.be/rwNc5aK3dBk

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nosianu 7y ago

No, not "exactly". You and OP completely ignore the point the author makes. In a lunar eclipse the moon actually really does get dark - no light falls on it any more. There is no point anywhere from which you will be able to see a moon that receives any light from the sun, because it doesn't. During a solar eclipse on the other hand there is no change whatsoever to the sun, it continues to shine just the same. Only those under the shadow of the moon see a change. Just to clarify, I'm merely relaying the point of the author. I have nothing to say about the use of language, he chose the words that he did and some may find them confusing and some may not. The way he expressed it is separate from the point made though, and OPs comment ignored that point.

shmerl 7y ago
The point wasn't very relevant though, regardless of the confusing language of "real". Obviously eclipse is measured relative to the observer, so how is it relevant that "the sun continues to shine just the same"? It's not relevant to the concept of eclipse, and doesn't make it any less real.
- svat 7y ago
  What the author of the email is pointing out is that: * A (total) solar eclipse is merely a statement that you, the observer, happen to be present in a small region of a few miles' radius, wherever the moon's shadow happens to be. If you imagine yourself flying around in space (or even just driving around in a car), you can very easily get out of this region and see that the sun continues to shine, etc. * A (total) lunar eclipse is a statement that the earth's shadow falls on the moon. No matter where you are in space, this is a statement about the amount of light reaching the moon's surface, independent of where the observer happens to be. You may not care about this, deciding that your vantage point as an observer is all that matters (whether your view of the sun or moon changes, respectively) by saying "Obviously eclipse is measured relative to the observer", but the author cares, and it's an interesting point. Obviously he's not claiming that a solar eclipse isn't "real" in the sense that you can't see it; only that it doesn't correspond to any astronomical event that is observer-independent (and relevant to more than a small region of the earth). Edit: Another way of saying this is that despite the name, a "solar" eclipse is a statement about (a small region of) the earth -- that's the part that gets less light; the sun is unaffected by a solar eclipse. On the other hand, a lunar eclipse is really a statement about the moon; the moon really does get less light during a lunar eclipse, as the moon is what is in shadow.
rimliu 7y ago
> no light falls on it any more If that were the case, we would not see the Moon during a lunar eclipse. Earth's atmosphere bends light, so some at the red end of the spectrum still reaches it. And Sun still shines the same during lunar eclipse too. Only those under the shadow of the Earth see the difference. It is just that Earth's shadow is big enough to cover the Moon and that's it. Neither eclipse is more or less "real" than the other one.
- kgwgk 7y ago
  The question is not what is more real in an absolute sense, the thing is that in a lunar eclipse the Moon is in the shadow (so it’s an objective, observer-independent fact about the Moon) while in a solar eclipse it’s the observer, not the Sun, that is in the shadow: the event is not “objective” in the same sense.
  - shmerl 7y ago
    The shadow from the Moon is on Earth though. I think the post has some difficulty grasping that eclipse is always relevant to the observer, not to something becoming totally deprived of light.
    - kgwgk 7y ago
      Of course, and that’s why an observer in another planet would say: “look, an Earth eclipse” (or at least they would if the Moon was big enough for the event to be easily noticeable for them or if they paid enough attention, but that’s not the main point). What we call “a lunar eclipse” is a solar eclipse in the Moon. What we call a solar eclipse is a solar eclipse on Earth. We can also observe solar eclipses (total or partial) on other bodies in the solar system. I agree that both are real, with a real shadow. But for a (total) lunar eclipse the full Moon is in the shadows, while in a solar eclipse a little shadow traverses the Earth surface.
      - shmerl 7y ago
        I think the post's confusion comes from trying to focus on where the shadow falls, while the concept of eclipse really is focused on what is obscured from view. I.e. calling them lunar and solar is consistent in the later sense. In case of lunar eclipse, the view of the Moon is obscured by the shadow of Earth. I.e. Sun's light is blocked by Earth, so it doesn't reflect back to Earth from the Moon. In case of solar eclipse, the view of the Sun is obscured by the Moon itself (which throws shadow on Earth), i.e. you don't see direct light from the Sun blocked by the Moon. Both are pretty real and both are called eclipses.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]