What would really be interesting to see is a Lunar Eclipse... from the Moon! That bright red-ish disc of fire around the Earth should be really wonderfull to see :)
+Marcio Neves The problem is that the Earth appears larger than the Sun as viewed from the Moon, so you wouldn't have a corona during the total eclipse. The Moon is just the right size and distance from the Earth for when you're viewing eclipses from down here.
Pteprocks nope, that you have wrong. You see, the atmosphere refracts the solar light back into the moon as a red glow. That's why the Moon turns red when it becomes completly eclipsed by Earth :) Given that, if someone stands on the Moon during that event and look up to Earth, it would see a somewhat BLACK disc with a red GLOW around it ;)
Yeah, it was an awesome experience. At first the sun is shining brightly above tree tops, then when the Eclipse happened, all around me was just getting overcast by the shadow of the moon. Street lights went on because the sensor thought it was getting dark. Just like someone switching the dimmer button on your room, but it's not only your room. Unforgettable experience :D
Isn't the sequence at 2:40 taken by the Discover spacecraft taken at the L1 point? In which case the image of the moon is about a factor of 4/3 larger in radius relative to the earth than it "should" be? That means a factor of 16/9 in area, or about 78% larger.
+Scott Manley shouldn't the outer edge of partial shadow be bigger in diameter than the object as it begins where object is only touching light source circle? example (L - light, O - object, P - partiall shadow) |________L P \____/_L P_ \ _/ __L P_OX__ _L P_ / _\ __L P /____\_L |__________ L
This CGI does not accurately represent what we see in real life. Actual footage of an eclipse shows a very distinct shadow that is only ~75 or so miles wide watch?v=YBoa81xEvNA
Interesting fact: There is a powershell script somewhere in the internet that I use periodically that sets an image from the Himawari-8 satellite as your desktop wallpaper. Today I saw that black spot and wondered if it was indeed a solar eclipse. Turns out I was right, thanks Scott!
+Scott Manley you beat me to it scott! i was waiting for the full resolution 11,000 by 11,000 images to hit the archive site to make a time lapse in 4k of the eclipse! still got about 7 hours for all the images to hit the archive.
Scott Manley lol i HATE your PC :) kidding... i got a crap one... just loading the full res images in a viewer eats all my ram(and then some) i have a love/hate relationship with .PNG files, the full res ones range between 4MB and 155MB depending on how much of the planet is lit, which i why i keep my time lapses normally at 1080p, was going to do a 4k of the eclipse... well... more accurately, was going to have a friend render it out.
+James Cowell (hahashloopy) I'm finding it really trippy how the shadow moves from west to east. Even though the two bodies both move east to west relative to the surface of the earth.
I remember reading many years ago a "Science fact essay?" by a Sci-Fi author (Maybe Issac Asimov?) about just how lucky we are concerning Total Eclipses. For any given moon it has to be very close exact distance from its Primary to cause the end of the shadow cone to be just touching the surface (Giving a viewer in that location the Total eclipse ring of fire visual effect) like we have on Earth. He looked at All the (at that time) known moons in our solar system and calculated that all of them were either too close or too far to cause a total eclipse like we see on Earth on the planets they were going around. I "think" he also looked at the time span for our moon and figured that X number of years in the past that were no solar eclipses (Moon to close) and X number of years in the future they will stop because the moon will be too far away.
My RU-vid video quality started dropping just as Scott was saying that the Japanese satellite could take these amazing high-resolution shots. I was thinking "Man, that's some sarcasm". I'll have to re-watch the video at home :/
The images and animations on Digital Typhoon are sooooo beautiful....never seen anything like that before. Jaw dropping for me but I guess that's what weather people see everyday.
A small request, could you put the links to these things in the description? It's a bit of a pain having to type them and keep switching back to the video >.>
+Matthew Brough I think they actually just have is on a table and put some salt underneath it to keep it from moving. They've gotten a bit smarter, over the years, but not smart enough.
I can agree that a solar eclipse is better here on the ground than from a geostationary satellite. But what about from a distance where the Earth perfectly eclipses the sun? This is a photo I took in Elite: Dangerous, not of Earth just a random ringed gas giant, that illustrates what I'm talking about. The scattering of light through the atmosphere to give the planet a glowing effect around its circumference. i.imgur.com/ubSgo6T.jpg
I thought the shadow of the Moon would actually be far smaller than that, actually. A total solar eclipse lasts for barely more than a minute or two, that looks like it lasted for half an hour.
+Shaw Fujikawa Keep in mind that, depending on where you live, you're moving at around 1500km/h relative to the Moon, and that shadow was moving even faster.
+Shaw Fujikawa Well it takes several hours for the shadow to cross the surface of the Earth. However, for someone stationary on the surface, it only takes a few minutes for the umbra to pass over them. Also keep in mind that the shadow you see in this movie is mostly penumbra. The actual umbral shadow is at the middle but you can't really see a distinguished edge because of the exposure of the image.
The next Total Solar eclipse will be in the US in AUG 2017, I really wish I could catch it but unfortunately I will be at my working holiday down under :( I can leave AU and come back but I am not sure if I have to money to do the small trip to the US, need advise.
Well the fact is I actually was in the partial solar eclipse that was in the summer it was crazy as in mid day it just went dark like it was eavning but i didnt actually see it as it was Cloudy
Probably a dumb question. But the sattelite looks like it isn't moving (which is obviously not whats happening). did they manage to make the sattelite orbit so that it would move in parallel to earth's spin? *sorry for my english disclaimer*
+amitkk It was a geostationary satellite. This means that it orbits around the Earth with the same speed as Earth spins around. Therefore the satellite looks like it is suspended over 1 spot of Earth, while actually it is spinning together with Earth.
+amitkk Yes, actually. "Geostationary" means that the orbital period of the satellite matches the rotational speed of the parent body exactly, which means you get a perfectly consistent view of the surface at all times. Most television satellites are also in geostationary orbit, as it makes it much easier to transmit data to and from the surface.
+Gentry Walker I suppose that he simply downloaded a lot of images (every 10 minutes) and then applied some Fade In and Fade Out effects. Look at the UTC timer in yellow, the numbers smoothly changes from one to another. It's a transition effect.
Nah it takes more than ignorance to imagine the world is flat, the world is so obviously a sphere you need to literally make up a bunch of BS to make a flat earth model work (which is why there's no working flat earth model).
How do they get pics of entire earth from low orbit without pasting them together? I thought this perspective could only be had if you were really high up. I thought satellites generally stayed low. Please let me know if you do.
The Himawari-8 satellite is in a geostationary orbit 22,200 miles above New Guinea and nowhere near low orbit. The other satellite is about one million miles away.
Should there not be a very small bright spot in the middle of the shadow due to the light being diffracted around the edge of the moon and interfering at the center of the shadow? I wonder if that is somehow measurable/visable.
+XKrustenKaese Light interference is something that happens at the scale of the wavelength of light, so interference effects won't be visible at this scale.
How come the shadow is exactly the same size as the earth? In fact why in most eclipses it's a perfect match. What are the odds that the distance is that concise
+Lefty Gomez The moon has been slowly receding from the Earth since it formed. A million years ago, solar eclipses would have been more common and lasted longer because the moon would have been notably larger in the sky relative to the sun. In the future, the moon will have moved far enough away that it will no longer be able to cover the entire sun, and total solar eclipses will be a thing of the past. It's not a perfect match either. Depending on where Earth is in its orbit, and the Moon in its orbit as well, the moon can be smaller than the sun, which, when eclipses happen, lead to annular eclipses. Sometimes the moon is notably bigger than the sun, leading to total eclipses with rather large umbras on the surface. It pretty much just is a coincidence that modern human civilization happened to develop at a time when the ratio of the moon's radius to the sun's is similar to the ratio of it's distance from Earth to the Sun's distance (thus making them both appear approximately the same size).
Clouds In CGIs are always broken. Earth supposedly moves & the incredible amount of Water never cover the continents. For some strange reason, the Oceans always stop on the beaches. Good Breaks.
I'm sad, because there also has been a total solar eclipse in my home a few couple years ago. Problem being I was about 3-4 years old back then and I absolutely can't remember it. :( I don't know tif I'll ever get the cance to see one again. Maybe I'll just travel to one someday :D
Only if you understand 'a few' as 2-3 ;) Because I think 'a few' could actually be more. But maybe you're right, it was kinda misunderstandable. Sorry if I made u think I was a child. ^^
Is the area where the phong highlight hits the Earth much brighter than its surroundings or is it just a matter of perspektive and there isn't actually a gigantic bright spot on the ocean?
+omma911 If there is a lamp 45 degrees from a mirror and you stand -45 degrees to the mirror you will see the light bulb centered. If I stand 0 degrees to the mirror I will most likely not be able to see the bulb(that's Dependant on the width of the mirror) ; if I stand at the same 45 degrees as the lamp I will never see the reflection. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; same applies to light. The ocean is a terribly distorted mirror.
+RedsBoneStuff It would look rather similar to the start of this video, when the Sun is on the opposite side of the Earth from the viewer's perspective. The reason solar eclipses get that spectacular halo effect is because the moon's diameter is about 1/400th that of the sun, and it's also around 1/400th the distance from Earth, meaning, from here, their disks appear roughly the same size. The sun's corona is considerably larger than its disk, and remains visible.
Matt Loveland I thought the Earth would be surrounded by a strong red glow because of a combination of scattering and astronomical refraction. Basically, a ring of sunset around the entire edge of the Eath. Isn't that why the Moon is red at Lunar eclipses?
The edges would be red, but I don't think it would form a full ring. More likely two opposing red crescents. Which might actually be cooler to see. You could be right though. All the images I can find are simulated, not actual pictures, but they all show a full ring.
The only thing is that you would not see the earth disc from where the satellite is. Satellites are in low orbit and there is no way to see the curvature of the earth, so nice camera effect… It would be nice to see it like that. That is more or less how it would look from the moon We should place a telescope there pointing to earth
You're not very well educated if you think satellites are only in low earth orbit. It would appear that you haven't heard of geostationary satellites or geosynchronous satellites, have you? How about you do some research on those yourself. I mean, you wouldn't want to appear unable to actually research and learn something you clearly don't know about, would you?
But thats pretty impossible, I guess. The density of the moon would need to increase by several million times to count as something near to a black hole.
+harry 717 not necessarily, if the black hole were small enough, it could implode on itself and blow everything else up around it. See +Kurzgesagt's video on "What if there was a black hole in your pocket?"
+Kemphoss thats polar. Geostationary is around the equator at the correct speed so that you are always over the same area of land/always appear in the same point in the sky
I just hate how my brain can't seem to understand that these are real photos. I mean they always look like photoshop! The same thing happens while watching internal ISS videos - they always seem like special effects (where are the ropes?!). I can't wait to see a human face in the backdrop of Mars. Go science!
+mike doblo Nah, they'll just claim it's all a bunch of fake CGI. They need to be strapped into a rocket and forced to recant their stupidity on camera from the ISS.
***** I have a strong suspicion that virtually all the flat earth people on RU-vid are trolls who don't sincerely believe what they spout, "Jeranism" especially. He doesn't believe much of anything at all to the point of self-parody.
