How Total is a Total Solar Eclipse ??

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double-A Hagar will never admit he is wrong. He goes well with the
shotting of the messenger if you don't like the message. That page he
tells us to read is nothing.,but to him it gives the answers(go figure)
Hagars true colors come out when he is told how stupid he is.
Take Baily's beads,they are caused by bits of the solar disk shining
through the irregular terrain of mountains,and valleys on the lunar
surface. Total eclipse in 1919 made the name Einstein a house hold
name. How much light bent he predicted very accurate,and I find that
measurement very interesting. I never knew what star they used?(still
don't) Before and after Photography was needed,and I like that. Bert


The stars Eddigton used were the Hyades, a cluster of bright stars that
he knew the Sun would be passing through right at the time of the
eclipse.

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp

They are the eye of the bull, Taurus.

http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/hyades-p.html

Double-A

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Double-A Hagar will never admit he is wrong. He goes well with the
shotting of the messenger if you don't like the message. That page he

snip drivel

Show me the mountains you claim to see:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...&ct=image&cd=2

Distortions of the edge caused by prominences don't count as mountains.
Case closed.

Hagar wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Double-A Hagar will never admit he is wrong. He goes well with the
shotting of the messenger if you don't like the message. That page he

snip drivel

Show me the mountains you claim to see:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...&ct=image&cd=2

Distortions of the edge caused by prominences don't count as mountains.
Case closed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ns_on_the_Moon

Mons Huygens 4.7 km = 2.9 miles high.

Sounds like a mountain to me.

Also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baily's_beads

Double-A

In article , "Hagar" wrote:

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hagar (the horrible) The Moon has mountains and they are to tall to be
crater ridges. The tallest mountain in the solar system is on Mars its
name is "Olympus Mons" its height is 16 miles,and plate tectonics had
nothing to do with creating this mountain. It was a volcano(get the
picture) The hills and mountains on the Moon came from volcanoes over
2.3 billion years ago. Reality is there is lava flow still seen on its
surface. Looking at a picture of it as I type This sea of solidified
lava is called "Maria" Turned to another nice
picture I have with astronaut James Irwin in the driver's seat as he
drives by a very tall hill or short mountain It even has a
nice peak and looks little like the Great Pyramid only bigger. I know
your ego Hagar will make you not go back to your stupid post. It might
make your dim brain block this information. Go in one ear and out the
other. Well best to remember a total eclipse is a much better
match up than an annular eclipse. Bert


Beeert, speaking of dim brains, you are full of it. Go to this page and get
an education:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...n_surface.html

You will notice that the Moon has "highlands", which are a far cry from the
mountains you suggest one sees at its edge during a solar eclipse. I can't
stop you from posting crap, but to save yourself some embarrassment, do a
little research before firing from the hip. Surely you have heard of
"Google" ... try it, you might just like it.

Hagar, it doesn't happen often, but Bert is right. There are mountains on
the moon, and several of them are even *named*. When lunar scientists
refer to the highlands and lowlands, they are just distinguishing between
two very different areas on the moon.

And I saw something in another post of yours where you mentioned that
they can't be mountains because the moon doesn't have plate tectonics.
That's utterly irrelevant. By definition a mountain is a certain height
above a reference point, it doesn't have to be formed by plate tectonics.

Kerr I once knew when a hill becomes a mountain,and I think it was
2500 feet?? Still I can't get the thought out of my mine how total a
total eclipse is. Mother nature did that right. How much better is the
moon than using a coronagraph?

In article , (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Kerr I once knew when a hill becomes a mountain,and I think it was
2500 feet?? Still I can't get the thought out of my mine how total a
total eclipse is. Mother nature did that right. How much better is the
moon than using a coronagraph?

What's a hill and what's a mountain is often down to local definitions.
For instance, if memory serves, in England a mountain is anything over 600
metres (a little bit over 2000 feet) but in Scotland it's something over
3000 feet. In the US, it's something over 1000 feet, but my memory might
be wrong about that.

A coronograph is better than the moon because you can use it at any time,
not just a few times a year. Using the moon as a coronograph also limits
you to just using it for solar observing (or the odd occasion you want to
observe the transit of a star or planet). In astronomy, a coronograph is
mostly used for blocking out the light from stars, not just the sun.

In article , (Tom Kerr) wrote:

[...]

A coronograph is better than the moon because you can use it at any time,
not just a few times a year. Using the moon as a coronograph also limits
you to just using it for solar observing (or the odd occasion you want to
observe the transit of a star or planet). In astronomy, a coronograph is
mostly used for blocking out the light from stars, not just the sun.

*Coronagraph*. One day I'll have this drummed into my head.

Tom are there more than one type of coronagraph? Why is it not discussed
more? It seems such a great feature for telescopes for taking pictures
of the Sun. are they all made of metal? are some made like a washer?
Bert

Astronomers have already covered all of that old fool, BEERTbrain!
READ SOME OF THE AVAILABLE LITERATURE BEFORE YOU WASTE MORE OF OUR
TIME!

Saul Levy


On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 09:41:55 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Best picture I have of one is one taken by Professor Jeanette Stock in
Venezuela. It shows the uneven rays of light surrounding the black
Moon.(breath taking) Is the Moon a perfect size disk? Do the mountains
on the Moon have any effect? how much better could this total effect
be? what are the odds of size and distance creating such a great
blocking of the Sun? Bert

Look up the literature on coronagraphs, old stupid fool, BEERTbrain!
I've told you before several times now that a washer just won't do the
job.

The solar light stop is usually a reflective cone which throws most of
the Sun's light out of the beam path thus allowing the corona to be
viewed.

Saul Levy


On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:37:23 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Tom are there more than one type of coronagraph? Why is it not discussed
more? It seems such a great feature for telescopes for taking pictures
of the Sun. are they all made of metal? are some made like a washer?
Bert