A coincidence that bothers me - Page 8

Stu Pidasso · #71 11-13-2007, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So a total solar eclipse is total?

[/ QUOTE ]

A total solar eclipse is different from an annular eclipse. I'll leave it to Google to instruct you.

Stu

jbrennen · #72 11-13-2007, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A total solar eclipse is different from an annular eclipse. I'll leave it to Google to instruct you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, an annular eclipse is the eclipse that happens when a total solar eclipse would have happened, except that the size/distance ratio didn't quite line up exactly.

bunny · #73 11-13-2007, 05:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A total solar eclipse is different from an annular eclipse. I'll leave it to Google to instruct you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, an annular eclipse is the eclipse that happens when a total solar eclipse would have happened, except that the size/distance ratio didn't quite line up exactly.

[/ QUOTE ]
A much more succinct way of making the point I stuggled to. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

hitch1978 · #74 11-13-2007, 06:27 PM

I am still waiting for your definition of 'exact'.

Stu Pidasso · #75 11-14-2007, 02:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am still waiting for your definition of 'exact'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please remember that scientist and astronomers have called this coincidence "improbable" or "stellar" long before I did. They are the ones who prompted me to even think about this.

Frankly I'm a little dissapointed that people here are claiming its not that much of coincidence at all. I suppose everyone has their own paradigm.

As far as my definition of "exactly". I guess I will define it the same way I believe scientists and astronomers do when they use that word to describe a total solar eclipse. The disc of the moon exactly covers the disc of the sun when it prevents an earthbound observer from seeing any part of the surface of the sun, but does not prevent and earth bound observer from seeing features emanating from the surface of the sun(i.e. corona, prominences, etc).

I hope that help Hitch.

Stu

Sephus · #76 11-14-2007, 02:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Please remember that scientist and astronomers have called this coincidence... "stellar" long before I did.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you really think it's significant that they called the coincidence "stellar"?

what do you think they mean when they say that?

Stu Pidasso · #77 11-14-2007, 03:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
do you really think it's significant that they called the coincidence "stellar"?

what do you think they mean when they say that?

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably meant "of relating to the stars". What do you think they mean when they say the coincidence is "inprobable" (as NASA does on the link I provided earlier in this thread)?

Stu

bunny · #78 11-14-2007, 03:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you really think it's significant that they called the coincidence "stellar"?

what do you think they mean when they say that?

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably meant "of relating to the stars". What do you think they mean when they say the coincidence is "inprobable" (as NASA does on the link I provided earlier in this thread)?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
In fairness, they also say:

It has often been asked if the similarity of the Moon's and Sun's diameters can be simple coincidence. In the absence of more data about the statistical distribution of sizes of stars, planets, and moons in solar systems other than our own, it would seem that the most likely answer is "yes."

Sephus · #79 11-14-2007, 03:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you really think it's significant that they called the coincidence "stellar"?

what do you think they mean when they say that?

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably meant "of relating to the stars". What do you think they mean when they say the coincidence is "inprobable" (as NASA does on the link I provided earlier in this thread)?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

again, do you really think it's significant that they called the coincidence "stellar"?

[ QUOTE ]
Please remember that scientist and astronomers have called this coincidence "improbable" or "stellar" long before I did.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Fantastic" or "stellar" coincidences bother me. It seems to me that when something looks to be a "fantastic" or "stellar" coincidence theres probably a correct explanation, not dependent on chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sephus · #80 11-14-2007, 03:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think they mean when they say the coincidence is "inprobable" (as NASA does on the link I provided earlier in this thread)?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think they ought to know that the word is "improbable." nobody says "inprobable."

i also think they're being redundant, because hardly anyone uses the word "coincidence" to describe something unless they think it was improbable.