Recent content by mincam

I'm in way over my head. But what I am understanding is that the larger you make the radius of the planet, the better your odds are. Why? I'm not sure but I think it's because by moving around on the planet you can change the moon's annular size faster than the sun's. But I still think the 95...

Or is this better? "What are the odds, anywhere in the universe, that a planet will experience an annular eclipse where the angular size of the moon is within 95 to 99 percent of the sun's?"

Or is this better? "What are the odds, anywhere in the universe, that a planet will experience an annular eclipse where the angular size of the moon is within 95 to 99 percent of the sun's?"

Thank you, very, very much! Very informative and educational for me. However, the examples you give are close but no cigar. Would my question have been better phrased if I had said: "During a full eclipse, what are the odds of a moon's angular size being within 90 to 99.9 percent of its sun's...

Well, I have to admit that I don't understand this (which is why I'm here,) but that strikes me as really, really , really amazing. It would seem to me, perhaps wrongly, that the fact that our moon is perfectly sized and positioned to give us the "total eclipse" I describe has no influence on...

The reason I "constrained" as I did, was because it's my understanding that our understanding of the sun was/is greatly facilitated because we have been able to extract a lot of information from our observations at "chromosphere time" that we would otherwise have found much more difficult, or...

I am not sure of the definition of a total eclipse, but what I am describing as a total eclipse in my question is the kind we on Earth experience; that is to say, an eclipse where only the tiny annular ring of chromosphere is briefly visible. I am guessing that there are many (millions?)...

Well I mean, like, if I want to put up an Earth satellite that never casts a shadow on earth, I can't do it, because it's impossible.

I can take that as gospel, right? No exceptions?

OK, I see I need to modify: Assume that the moon leaves a path that makes a shadow. I assume that it would be impossible for that path not to leave a shadow .. yada, yada, yada.

OK, thanks. I asked this question because of my Moon Shadow Question. It's the next thread down. Just for example, assume that the "axis" of any moon's orbit (of any planet) now points N&S. As this orbit "circles" the Sun, I assume that its orbital axis will always point N&S. And in that case...

OK, thanks, I think I am getting it. How about this? Assume that the handles of my bucket are mounted on frictionless bearings and they are vertical as I swing the bucket horizontally. After I swing the bucket 180 degrees, the water will all fly out because the bottom will now be facing me...

If I am the sun I have eyes in the back of my head and I am always making day on just one side of the bucket. Imagine that I have a light bulb on the top of my head that is casting light in all directions. I am never lighting the bottom outside of the bucket. Correct? My problem is that I can...

Agreed, but in my example I am the sun and the Earth is the bucket. I am not the imaginary person watching from a distance who sees both sides.

Just to be clear: It would be six months of day and six months of night. Nobody is saying that one side would always be day and the opposite side always be night? And if that is the case, I will ask, "Why not?" Then I will compare it to centrifugal force and say that if I swing a bucket of...