6 ms·

This has been discussed in another thread, but to repeat myself in different words: - During a solar eclipse, something appears to change with the sun, but app

by svat 7y ago

This has been discussed in another thread, but to repeat myself in different words: - During a solar eclipse, something appears to change with the sun, but appearances are deceptive: all that a so-called "solar" eclipse means is that the observer happens to be in a small region a few miles across on earth; one can easily drive to a different place and see that the sun is unaffected and continues to shine as usual. Despite the name, a solar eclipse is really an event about a small patch of earth. - During a lunar eclipse, something appears to change with the moon, and this is right! The moon really does fall under shadow, something that's true wherever the observer may be. A lunar eclipse really corresponds to something happening on the moon. Of course if you define away the difference by saying that eclipses are only about a specific observer at a specific point on earth, there is no difference, but that's not the point being made.

lisper 7y ago
There really is a difference, but the words "real" and "virtual" are not the correct characterization of that difference. Solar eclipses are every bit as real as lunar ones. "Global" and "local" are more appropriate adjectives to describe the difference.
- svat 7y ago
  Well, this is where we get into shades of meanings of words like “eclipse”, and what connotations those words carry to you. If you think of an eclipse as purely a visual phenomenon in the sky as seen from earth—if that's all the connotation that the word carries to you—then of course solar eclipses are every bit as real as lunar ones; as anyone can plainly see. It is similar if you think of the astronomical phenomena as simply “some body casts its shadow on some body”, and the terms “solar” and “lunar” are merely conventional labels attached to distinguish the different kinds. But it's possibly cultural what you think of as an “eclipse”. In Indian languages, the word from Sanskrit used is grahaṇa, which is from the verb for seizing, holding, catching, capturing, etc. So “solar eclipse” and “lunar eclipse” are literally “sun-capture” and “moon-capture”. Now from a very literal reading, neither of those is real: neither the sun nor the moon is really seized or captured anyway. But based on the connotation that I think most people have, we can say: * During a solar eclipse, you may think something's happening to the sun, but that's not real; that's only virtual. * During a lunar eclipse, you may think something's happening to the moon, and that's real. So I hope we can agree that there is something that's “real” during a lunar eclipse and not during a solar eclipse (namely, the corresponding named body being physically affected in some way); whether the word “eclipse” carries that connotation to you is of course something for only you to say.
  - lisper 7y ago
    > So I hope we can agree that there is something that's “real” during a lunar eclipse and not during a solar eclipse No. I understand what you're saying, but it is simply not true that nothing is happening to the sun during a solar eclipse. Something is happening to the sun: it is being blocked from your view by the moon. It is perfectly analogous to what happening to the moon during a lunar eclipse: it is being blocked from the sun's view by the earth. The situations are exactly the same except for two things: the scope, and the perspective of an earth-bound observer. But IMHO those differences are not nearly enough to warrant labeling one of those "real" and the other one "virtual". They are both equally real.
    - svat 7y ago
      I edited my previous comment to include the word "physically" in "physically affected". I think we're going in circles now -- how would you describe the fact that really some less light falls on the moon (so an observer on the moon can tell when a lunar eclipse is going on), while nothing changes on the sun (an observer on the sun cannot tell, at least not easily / in any significant way, when a solar eclipse going on in Europe?). If you will not grant that in one case there's a physical ("real") change happening on the moon/sun and in the other not, what words or phrases would you use to describe it? And is it inconceivable that someone's conception of an eclipse may care about whatever that difference is? At this point we're just debating the meanings of words and phrases like "something is happening to the sun" and whether being blocked from the view of someone on earth counts as something happening to the sun; one can very well argue whether shadows are real ("of course it's real, you see it right there" versus "no a shadow has no physical existence, it just looks like there's a dark object on the ground") and so on. At some point one ought to grant that others attach subtly different connotations to words.
      - bnegreve 7y ago
        "something physical" happens in both cases either to the moon (lunar eclipse), or to the earth (solar eclipse). If you're going to question people's perspective, tell them this instead of telling them that solar eclipses are virtual.
- dmix 7y ago
  I don’t think english is the author’s first language. I wouldn’t get caught up in the errors he makes. He still managed to make it sound almost poetic.

by svat 7y ago

lisper 7y ago

There really is a difference, but the words "real" and "virtual" are not the correct characterization of that difference. Solar eclipses are every bit as real as lunar ones. "Global" and "local" are more appropriate adjectives to describe the difference.

svat 7y ago
Well, this is where we get into shades of meanings of words like “eclipse”, and what connotations those words carry to you. If you think of an eclipse as purely a visual phenomenon in the sky as seen from earth—if that's all the connotation that the word carries to you—then of course solar eclipses are every bit as real as lunar ones; as anyone can plainly see. It is similar if you think of the astronomical phenomena as simply “some body casts its shadow on some body”, and the terms “solar” and “lunar” are merely conventional labels attached to distinguish the different kinds. But it's possibly cultural what you think of as an “eclipse”. In Indian languages, the word from Sanskrit used is grahaṇa, which is from the verb for seizing, holding, catching, capturing, etc. So “solar eclipse” and “lunar eclipse” are literally “sun-capture” and “moon-capture”. Now from a very literal reading, neither of those is real: neither the sun nor the moon is really seized or captured anyway. But based on the connotation that I think most people have, we can say: * During a solar eclipse, you may think something's happening to the sun, but that's not real; that's only virtual. * During a lunar eclipse, you may think something's happening to the moon, and that's real. So I hope we can agree that there is something that's “real” during a lunar eclipse and not during a solar eclipse (namely, the corresponding named body being physically affected in some way); whether the word “eclipse” carries that connotation to you is of course something for only you to say.
- lisper 7y ago
  > So I hope we can agree that there is something that's “real” during a lunar eclipse and not during a solar eclipse No. I understand what you're saying, but it is simply not true that nothing is happening to the sun during a solar eclipse. Something is happening to the sun: it is being blocked from your view by the moon. It is perfectly analogous to what happening to the moon during a lunar eclipse: it is being blocked from the sun's view by the earth. The situations are exactly the same except for two things: the scope, and the perspective of an earth-bound observer. But IMHO those differences are not nearly enough to warrant labeling one of those "real" and the other one "virtual". They are both equally real.
  - svat 7y ago
    I edited my previous comment to include the word "physically" in "physically affected". I think we're going in circles now -- how would you describe the fact that really some less light falls on the moon (so an observer on the moon can tell when a lunar eclipse is going on), while nothing changes on the sun (an observer on the sun cannot tell, at least not easily / in any significant way, when a solar eclipse going on in Europe?). If you will not grant that in one case there's a physical ("real") change happening on the moon/sun and in the other not, what words or phrases would you use to describe it? And is it inconceivable that someone's conception of an eclipse may care about whatever that difference is? At this point we're just debating the meanings of words and phrases like "something is happening to the sun" and whether being blocked from the view of someone on earth counts as something happening to the sun; one can very well argue whether shadows are real ("of course it's real, you see it right there" versus "no a shadow has no physical existence, it just looks like there's a dark object on the ground") and so on. At some point one ought to grant that others attach subtly different connotations to words.
    - bnegreve 7y ago
      "something physical" happens in both cases either to the moon (lunar eclipse), or to the earth (solar eclipse). If you're going to question people's perspective, tell them this instead of telling them that solar eclipses are virtual.
dmix 7y ago
I don’t think english is the author’s first language. I wouldn’t get caught up in the errors he makes. He still managed to make it sound almost poetic.