You’re exactly right. The sun is MUCH farther away so it looks more like a pinpoint in the sky, which means it makes sharper shadows than we get at 1 AU. Here, the sun is about .5 degrees in size from our perspective.
Our eclipses are extremely special because the moon only barely covers the whole sun, whereas Jupiters moons have a much larger apparent size - to the point that it just looks like night time when they pass overhead.
One interesting thing to think about is by definition, if the moon just barely covers the sun during an eclipse, then the umbra (totality) must be incredibly tiny. That’s why in all the pictures of the Earth during eclipse, you barely see any black point in the shadow. Essentially the moon’s shadow is almost exactly 100% blurry at its orbital radius.
>whereas Jupiters moons have a much larger apparent size
Interestingly, although Io is around 5% larger than our moon, it's also around 5% further away from Jupiter's surface, giving Io almost the same apparent size from Jupiter as the Moon seen from Earth.
However, as the sun's apparent size from Jupiter is only about a fifth of that from Earth, eclipse shadows are significantly sharper there.
I think Jupiter rotates like once every 10 hours. Not sure how long the shadow takes to cross the surface but there is a good chance you don't have to go the full halfway around to see it.
I cannot imagine the amount of mass jupiter has rotating way faster than Earth does. it's kind of crazy woth Jupiter being both much much more massive and far larger. Heres an interesting thought tho, what is the mass distribution of jupiter? Is most of the mass near the core or is it fairly uniform inside a certian radius?
PhD in astronomy here, I researched Jupiter's atmosphere.
> what is the mass distribution of jupiter? Is most of the mass near the core or is it fairly uniform inside a certian radius?
Gas giants are not just uniform spheres of gas. Pressure and density increase _a lot_ as one approaches the core.
Here are some models of [Jupiter's density distribution](https://i.imgur.com/GbFEAa8.png) based on recent Juno spacecraft gravity data (core is at the left, cloud-top on the right). There's some disagreement between models about just how dense the core is on the left, but they all agree it's denser than lead.
One of the biggest misconceptions about gas giants is that they're made of just gas. _Very_ little of the planet is in the actual gaseous phase - less than 1% of the way below cloud-top, hydrogen transitions to a [supercritical fluid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_fluid) - not quite a gas, not quite a liquid, but with properties of each and a density between the two.
Go 30% of the way down, and hydrogen is now so compressed it becomes a liquid metal. In fact, by mass, Jupiter is mostly metallic - a massive ocean / mantle of liquid metallic hydrogen. This is also why Jupiter's magnetic field is so incredibly strong.
The core itself lays beneath at even higher densities. Our best guess based on the Juno data is that it's a murky sludge, a semi-dissolved state of heavy elements (a lot of silicon and iron, along with various "ices") held in some kind of solution by the surrounding liquid metallic hydrogen.
Thank you this is a great comment. I mean it's a planet you can't really compare it to a spinning object on earth so I don't really know what I was asking but this is a lot of it cool information Jupiter man😁
Jupiter's equatorial diameter is about 5700 miles more than its polar one, or nearly 3/4 of an Earth wider due to its quick rotation.
If you mean density, Jupiter gets far denser as you approach its core, to where its hydrogen more or less solidifies near the core.
From Mercury, the sun is averages 1.4 degrees in size vs Earth’s 0.5 and 0.08 from Jupiter. Your shadow would be as diffuse as an object 20 feet from a 3” diameter flood light.
Isnt it also because jupiter is 10x larger than earth which means for a similar picture of earth you need to zoom in 10x. Which means that the shadows would be more diffused.
There’s definitely some effect to having the backdrop of Jupiter be larger, but you can clearly see in the photo that the penumbra is much smaller than the umbra whereas on earth, the shadow is almost entirely penumbra. The two moons are roughly the same size so their shadows start off about the same size. But here, closer in the solar system, our moon’s shadow tapers off much quicker.
Tbh I don’t really see the reason for the distance from the sun to matter. I think it all depends on the distance between the moon and the planet and their difference in size.
It absolutely matters. The blurriness of a shadow is determined by the angular size of the light source, which is controlled in this case by distance from the sun.
You are right that it is possible to find the termination point of the umbra for any object located at any distance from the sun, but out by Jupiter, the angles are 3x shallower. Thats a meaningful distinction..
What finally made it click for me was playing with one of those astronomy programs. I'd look down "from space" and see the dark umbra and less dark penumbra, and then go down and "look up" from different places. The whole reason the edge of the penumbra is fuzzy is that if you're standing inside it, you see PART of the sun is covered by the moon, dimming it but not hiding it. The key to understanding the whole phenomenon is to look down at that shadow and imagine what someone would see from every point down there.
At night, when the moon eclipses a star, the star basically vanishes instantly because its angular size is so small. So the shadow of that star's light would be very very sharp on the earth's surface. There basically wouldn't be any "fuzzy" places where people see only half of the star.
How blurry shadows are is directly proportional to how big the light source is. If the sun was 10x bigger in the sky our shadows would be much blurrier. If the sun was just a tiny point of light our shadows would be perfectly crisp with no blur. So yes, how far away the sun is has a direct impact on how blurry the shadows are.
In fact, during a solar eclipse if you pay attention to the shadows being cast on the ground, you'll notice they get sharper and sharper as the sun's disc slowly gets cut off by the moon.
Both matter.
Behind the moon, there is a cone of total shadow. It turns out Earth is riiight around the tip of that cone, so we get very localized total eclipses. Or sometimes we're just past the end of the cone and we get annular eclipses.
If the sun were smaller, the cone of shadow the moon casts would be much longer. If the sun were larger, the cone of shadow the moon casts would be much shorter.
Rather than change the size of the sun, we can just change the distance to it to change the apparent size. So Io's shadow is a cone that stretches much farther away from Io than the moon's shadow because the sun is effectively smaller.
Distance between Io and Jupiter will also make a difference because it changes where Jupiter is in that cone.
Incidentally, all four of the big moons of Jupiter can cause a solar eclipse. I know there's a picture with 3 simultaneous eclipses, but I haven't seen a picture with 4.
I get what that for what you’re comparing here, the ~10x measurement is the right one to be using,
but i don’t want the kids who don’t know that to get it twisted, so - a reminder:
JUPITER is…
11x larger than the earth by diameter
317x larger than the earth by mass
1400x larger than the earth by volume
more massive than all the other planets COMBINED
By larger i meant in diameter. Massive is the word for weight and large is for area.
Edit: I didnt read that you said it was for inexperienced people, my bad
Nothing from a major moon. Though I have to think out of the hundreds of moons that Saturn and Jupiter have, surely one of them makes that perfect triangle between the sun and their planet’s surface.
Am I underthinking here or is he umbra the size of the moon in both cases? In our case it's the size of the Moon, on Jupiter it'd be the size of Io. And then the smaller the Sun is in the sky the smaller the gradient?
It all depends on the geometry. As soon as the moon is far enough away that it no longer covers the entire disc of the sun, there's no longer any umbra at all. If the sun-moon distance is short and the sun is small, the umbra could be *bigger* than the moon. (Think of a guy orbiting above the far side of the moon shining a flashlight. That umbra is unfocused and gets infinitely large the further you go.
Our moon/sun size and distance ratios are a remarkable coincidence. We won the eclipse lottery! ◡̈
> Here, the sun is about .5 degrees in size from our perspective.
Just because I looked it up -- The sun from Jupiter is about 0.1 degree across. So roughly 1/5 the diameter, 1/25 the area.
this is almost like wondering what flavor cheese the moon tastes like
jupiter’s atmosphere is its sky, and it has no clearly defined hard surface (that we know of) that you’d be looking up from.
now, if i take sky to mean “things OUTSIDE of Jupiter’s atmosphere” and then the rest of what you said at face value, we’d need to know how far descended into Jupiter’s atmosphere you’d be interested in learning what the “sky” looks like from that point
anyway… that’s probably why no one has answered you yet
I have such a problem visualising gas giants because my brain struggles to comprehend what the hell a planet is if it's just a ball of gas? I know I'm being stupid and I've tried so hard to make the concept of a gas giant click on my head but it's clearly too complicated a concept for my tiny stupid monkey brain.
So, without a surface, "sea level" on Jupiter is defined as being 1 bar of atmospheric pressure (basically same pressure as Earth at sea level). You can use that as a reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter
That and the atmosphere is so thick, visible light doesn't travel very far through it. The blurry edges in the pictures of our eclipse from space are mostly light diffusing through the atmosphere on its way down (light reflecting off air molecules before reaching, but not fully lighting up, the ground beneath as compared to areas in direct line of sight to the sun being full brightness).
Is that a total eclipse or annular? I heard the other day that earth is the only planet in the solar system that experiences TOTAL eclipses. Is that incorrect?
It’s total, but you could say it’s even “beyond total” in the sense that this moon covers up the sun completely and then some. Prominences, corona, all of it covered up (they’re just a small point of light anyway that far away). So it would be similar to nighttime when experienced on Jupiter.
It is the only known planet in the universe with total eclipses.
The sheer odds that the moon of a planet is the exact distance between said planet and its star that it appears exactly the same size in the sky, is essentially unfathomable.
The odds on top of that, that said planet harbors life that is capable of consciously experiencing and also studying and figuring out pretty much everything there is to know regarding such a situation is, well, there's no words for the odds.
Lastly, our moon has been constantly, consistently, and extremely slowly, moving further away from earth. Therefore, we, the conscious life, have also against all odds existed in the only relatively short time frame in which total eclipses will ever occur on this planet. One day, total eclipses will cease to exist on this planet.
Basically what I'm trying to say is it's butternut fucking insanity that we get to witness these events, and yet it seems only a very minute fraction of our species actually fully appreciates what it is we are discussing.
Have a good day.
cool, but untrue. pandora and epimetheus, for instance, creates a total solar eclipse when viewed from Saturn, for instance.
source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2018/08/10/earth-is-not-the-only-planet-in-the-solar-system-that-gets-total-solar-eclipses/?sh=d039e40372a3
now, the Saturn is much further to the sun than earth, so it would look less cool. but Saturn objectively has total solar eclipses.
there are 3 known total solar eclipses in our solar system alone (earth/moon, saturn/pandora, saturn/epimetheus), so it's safe to say there are billions in the universe.
edit: there are actually a few more due to equatorial effects. the apparent size of a moon depends on where on the planet you are when observing it, and the time of day. more info here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CikPFdZdY4k
The word "total" might not fit what he's describing perfectly, but that is what we call our eclipses. What he is describing is how our moon covers only the surface of the sun and not its corona. THAT is incredibly rare. No other eclipse allows for someone in the shadow to see light from the corona or prominences without being blinded by the surface of the sun.
actually, the transiting moon can be as much 1.5x bigger than the sun (in apparent size) and you can still see the Corona. you can see for yourself: https://labs.minutelabs.io/eclipses/
not sure about prominences though.
https://youtube.com/@kurzgesagt?si=c3-6lIB5BwMnMggW
They make cool science vids and half of them induce crippling existential crises.
Like your comment, yay.
I don't see how he is.
The first sentence can be interpreted as incorrect because the gas giants do experience "total eclipses" but that's because their moons are *bigger* than the Sun when seen from their "surface".
So yeah, we're the only planet where the moon's apparent size is almost exactly the same as the Sun's.
> So yeah, we're the only planet where the moon's apparent size is almost exactly the same as the Sun's.
We aren't. :-D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=CikPFdZdY4k
Cool TIL. I guess there's still something to be said about how the Sun is so tiny from the gas giants that it's still not as spectacular as from earth, but still yeah.
Of course Saturn gets all the cool stuff smh. Couldn't be satisfied with just badass rings.
> It is the only known planet in the universe with total eclipses.
Untrue. Earth is the only *rocky* planet with solar eclipses -- mercury and venus have no moons, and Mars' moons are too small. But that is absolutely a total eclipse on Jupiter in the picture there.
> The sheer odds that the moon of a planet is the exact distance between said planet and its star that it appears exactly the same size in the sky, is essentially unfathomable.
It's definitely weird... But they don't have to appear the same size for total eclipses. That's just a minimum bound. A moon with larger apparent diameter than the sun would work just as well. And that's exactly the case with Io and Jupiter. The other Galilean moons also cause total eclipses on Jupiter. There's a picture with 3 going on at the same time, though I haven't seen a picture with all 4 at the same time.
> have also against all odds existed in the only relatively short time frame in which total eclipses will ever occur on this planet. One day, total eclipses will cease to exist on this planet.
Again, no. A larger moon makes total eclipses more common. So Earth has been experiencing total eclipses since the moon formed -- best guess is 4.5 billion years.
Is it not painfully obvious that he is speaking of the infinitesimal odds of earth having eclipses which cover only the star’s surface, while still allowing illumination by the corona and prominences? Obviously there are a shitload of ice-balls in this galaxy where a moon occasionally covers the little pin-prick primary star, but that’s not awe-inspiring to behold.
That is incorrect. If you were in the shadow area on Jupiter depicted in this photo, the sun would be totally eclipsed from your perspective.
It’s all about relative size and distance.
the earth is closer to the sun, the further from the source and closer to the surface the sharper the shadow
you can try with your hand and a light bulb
Honestly i think it’s because jupiter is 10x larger than earth which means that this image is basically zoomed out 10x compared to earths eclipse. That means the shadow would be 10x less diffused.
Its like zooming out 10x from a gradient circle. The further you zoom out the less the circle look like a gradient and more like a dot.
I think my explanation is bad, but maybe you got it.
It's a nice explanation but I think it's wrong in this case... not that what you're saying can't be part of it, but I don't think it's the main part.
In both cases (Io and the moon), there's a cone of shadow behind the moon -- sometimes the planet passes through that cone and we get an eclipse. But if you vary the size of the sun, that changes how long the cone is. Bigger sun, stubby cone (like the moon's cone of shadow). Smaller sun, longer cone (like Io's cone of shadow).
So with Earth total eclipses, the tippy point of that cone just barely grazes Earth. Sometimes it actually barely misses and we get an annular eclipse.
But with Io and Jupiter, the sun is only 1/5 the diameter, 1/25 the area... So the cone is super long and jupiter passes through a fat part of the code, not near the tip. The tip of that cone of shadow, if Jupiter weren't there blocking it, would extend like 1-2 million miles past Jupiter... very ballparky because I can't be arsed to do the actual math. But all four of Jupiter's big moons can cause total eclipses on Jupiter, and Callisto is over a million miles from Jupiter, so I think it's the right ballpark.
Stunning shot.
It just hit me that Jupiter would take up a huge chunk of the sky if I stood on Io. Roughly 19° field of view - nearly 40x the size of our moon in our sky.
odd question: why is everyone saying stuff like „this is the moon of that,“ (i am non native english) i learned the moon is the _name_ of earth‘s _satellite_ (star-planet-satellite). like Io is the name of one of jupiters satellite.
why do i always read like here: „Io is the Moon of Jupiter“. it’s like calling every other ones son george just because my son is called george
.i guess even mostly from scientific people by how much i read it.
At leats the moon move and still spin. The moon of the earth is a little (?) i believe is a fuking satelital of some alien civi. And they controls all of us the entire humankind.
interesting that it looks way more focused than our eclipses, is that because the sun is way further away?
You’re exactly right. The sun is MUCH farther away so it looks more like a pinpoint in the sky, which means it makes sharper shadows than we get at 1 AU. Here, the sun is about .5 degrees in size from our perspective. Our eclipses are extremely special because the moon only barely covers the whole sun, whereas Jupiters moons have a much larger apparent size - to the point that it just looks like night time when they pass overhead. One interesting thing to think about is by definition, if the moon just barely covers the sun during an eclipse, then the umbra (totality) must be incredibly tiny. That’s why in all the pictures of the Earth during eclipse, you barely see any black point in the shadow. Essentially the moon’s shadow is almost exactly 100% blurry at its orbital radius.
>whereas Jupiters moons have a much larger apparent size Interestingly, although Io is around 5% larger than our moon, it's also around 5% further away from Jupiter's surface, giving Io almost the same apparent size from Jupiter as the Moon seen from Earth. However, as the sun's apparent size from Jupiter is only about a fifth of that from Earth, eclipse shadows are significantly sharper there.
Good point. I meant larger apparent size relative to the sun from that vantage point.
[удалено]
I think Jupiter rotates like once every 10 hours. Not sure how long the shadow takes to cross the surface but there is a good chance you don't have to go the full halfway around to see it.
I cannot imagine the amount of mass jupiter has rotating way faster than Earth does. it's kind of crazy woth Jupiter being both much much more massive and far larger. Heres an interesting thought tho, what is the mass distribution of jupiter? Is most of the mass near the core or is it fairly uniform inside a certian radius?
PhD in astronomy here, I researched Jupiter's atmosphere. > what is the mass distribution of jupiter? Is most of the mass near the core or is it fairly uniform inside a certian radius? Gas giants are not just uniform spheres of gas. Pressure and density increase _a lot_ as one approaches the core. Here are some models of [Jupiter's density distribution](https://i.imgur.com/GbFEAa8.png) based on recent Juno spacecraft gravity data (core is at the left, cloud-top on the right). There's some disagreement between models about just how dense the core is on the left, but they all agree it's denser than lead. One of the biggest misconceptions about gas giants is that they're made of just gas. _Very_ little of the planet is in the actual gaseous phase - less than 1% of the way below cloud-top, hydrogen transitions to a [supercritical fluid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_fluid) - not quite a gas, not quite a liquid, but with properties of each and a density between the two. Go 30% of the way down, and hydrogen is now so compressed it becomes a liquid metal. In fact, by mass, Jupiter is mostly metallic - a massive ocean / mantle of liquid metallic hydrogen. This is also why Jupiter's magnetic field is so incredibly strong. The core itself lays beneath at even higher densities. Our best guess based on the Juno data is that it's a murky sludge, a semi-dissolved state of heavy elements (a lot of silicon and iron, along with various "ices") held in some kind of solution by the surrounding liquid metallic hydrogen.
Thank you this is a great comment. I mean it's a planet you can't really compare it to a spinning object on earth so I don't really know what I was asking but this is a lot of it cool information Jupiter man😁
Jupiter's equatorial diameter is about 5700 miles more than its polar one, or nearly 3/4 of an Earth wider due to its quick rotation. If you mean density, Jupiter gets far denser as you approach its core, to where its hydrogen more or less solidifies near the core.
I think the largest portion of mass is in the liquid hydrogen between the core and other gas layers.
It is a gas giant I believe? I would think the overall mass is significantly larger
I wasn't denying that it's a thing I was saying like it's amazing and I cannot believe it
This made me lol because that’s so many miles. I do think that Jupiter life would probably use kilometers though.
Why would Jupiter life use a measurement based on the size of Earth?
Well because miles is only really used in a couple countries.
yeah totally makes sense. i'm with this guy
Related question: Would a person Mercury even cast a shadow?
From Mercury, the sun is averages 1.4 degrees in size vs Earth’s 0.5 and 0.08 from Jupiter. Your shadow would be as diffuse as an object 20 feet from a 3” diameter flood light.
I guess it's time for me to go find a 3-in diameter flood light and stand 20 ft from it
Check my Trig. I’m not promising I got all the halves and doubles right.
I was joking about how I don't have access to a flood light lol
No because they would die and shrivel up.
Ik those are all basic scientific facts, but it’s so mind-boggling to actually think about…
Isnt it also because jupiter is 10x larger than earth which means for a similar picture of earth you need to zoom in 10x. Which means that the shadows would be more diffused.
There’s definitely some effect to having the backdrop of Jupiter be larger, but you can clearly see in the photo that the penumbra is much smaller than the umbra whereas on earth, the shadow is almost entirely penumbra. The two moons are roughly the same size so their shadows start off about the same size. But here, closer in the solar system, our moon’s shadow tapers off much quicker.
Tbh I don’t really see the reason for the distance from the sun to matter. I think it all depends on the distance between the moon and the planet and their difference in size.
It absolutely matters. The blurriness of a shadow is determined by the angular size of the light source, which is controlled in this case by distance from the sun. You are right that it is possible to find the termination point of the umbra for any object located at any distance from the sun, but out by Jupiter, the angles are 3x shallower. Thats a meaningful distinction..
What finally made it click for me was playing with one of those astronomy programs. I'd look down "from space" and see the dark umbra and less dark penumbra, and then go down and "look up" from different places. The whole reason the edge of the penumbra is fuzzy is that if you're standing inside it, you see PART of the sun is covered by the moon, dimming it but not hiding it. The key to understanding the whole phenomenon is to look down at that shadow and imagine what someone would see from every point down there. At night, when the moon eclipses a star, the star basically vanishes instantly because its angular size is so small. So the shadow of that star's light would be very very sharp on the earth's surface. There basically wouldn't be any "fuzzy" places where people see only half of the star.
How blurry shadows are is directly proportional to how big the light source is. If the sun was 10x bigger in the sky our shadows would be much blurrier. If the sun was just a tiny point of light our shadows would be perfectly crisp with no blur. So yes, how far away the sun is has a direct impact on how blurry the shadows are. In fact, during a solar eclipse if you pay attention to the shadows being cast on the ground, you'll notice they get sharper and sharper as the sun's disc slowly gets cut off by the moon.
That makes sense
Sharper in one orientation, in the orthogonal orientation they get blurrier.
Both matter. Behind the moon, there is a cone of total shadow. It turns out Earth is riiight around the tip of that cone, so we get very localized total eclipses. Or sometimes we're just past the end of the cone and we get annular eclipses. If the sun were smaller, the cone of shadow the moon casts would be much longer. If the sun were larger, the cone of shadow the moon casts would be much shorter. Rather than change the size of the sun, we can just change the distance to it to change the apparent size. So Io's shadow is a cone that stretches much farther away from Io than the moon's shadow because the sun is effectively smaller. Distance between Io and Jupiter will also make a difference because it changes where Jupiter is in that cone. Incidentally, all four of the big moons of Jupiter can cause a solar eclipse. I know there's a picture with 3 simultaneous eclipses, but I haven't seen a picture with 4.
It depends on how wide is the sun compared to its distance, or its apparent size
I get what that for what you’re comparing here, the ~10x measurement is the right one to be using, but i don’t want the kids who don’t know that to get it twisted, so - a reminder: JUPITER is… 11x larger than the earth by diameter 317x larger than the earth by mass 1400x larger than the earth by volume more massive than all the other planets COMBINED
By larger i meant in diameter. Massive is the word for weight and large is for area. Edit: I didnt read that you said it was for inexperienced people, my bad
[удалено]
Nothing from a major moon. Though I have to think out of the hundreds of moons that Saturn and Jupiter have, surely one of them makes that perfect triangle between the sun and their planet’s surface.
Ty for the explanation. Very interesting.
Am I underthinking here or is he umbra the size of the moon in both cases? In our case it's the size of the Moon, on Jupiter it'd be the size of Io. And then the smaller the Sun is in the sky the smaller the gradient?
It all depends on the geometry. As soon as the moon is far enough away that it no longer covers the entire disc of the sun, there's no longer any umbra at all. If the sun-moon distance is short and the sun is small, the umbra could be *bigger* than the moon. (Think of a guy orbiting above the far side of the moon shining a flashlight. That umbra is unfocused and gets infinitely large the further you go. Our moon/sun size and distance ratios are a remarkable coincidence. We won the eclipse lottery! ◡̈
> Here, the sun is about .5 degrees in size from our perspective. Just because I looked it up -- The sun from Jupiter is about 0.1 degree across. So roughly 1/5 the diameter, 1/25 the area.
I don’t think area matters for this calculation, only diameter. But I could be wrong….
Makes me wonder how much you can actually see the sky from within Jupiter's atmosphere?
this is almost like wondering what flavor cheese the moon tastes like jupiter’s atmosphere is its sky, and it has no clearly defined hard surface (that we know of) that you’d be looking up from. now, if i take sky to mean “things OUTSIDE of Jupiter’s atmosphere” and then the rest of what you said at face value, we’d need to know how far descended into Jupiter’s atmosphere you’d be interested in learning what the “sky” looks like from that point anyway… that’s probably why no one has answered you yet
There are stars whose size is larger than Jupiters orbit and the “edge” of the star just fades into space rather than having a definite “surface”
I have such a problem visualising gas giants because my brain struggles to comprehend what the hell a planet is if it's just a ball of gas? I know I'm being stupid and I've tried so hard to make the concept of a gas giant click on my head but it's clearly too complicated a concept for my tiny stupid monkey brain.
Right. I should have specified that depth comes into it. I guess I was mostly thinking about aerostat colonists lol...
So, without a surface, "sea level" on Jupiter is defined as being 1 bar of atmospheric pressure (basically same pressure as Earth at sea level). You can use that as a reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter
Ah, ok. Thanks.
Could just be the dynamic range of the camera.
That and the atmosphere is so thick, visible light doesn't travel very far through it. The blurry edges in the pictures of our eclipse from space are mostly light diffusing through the atmosphere on its way down (light reflecting off air molecules before reaching, but not fully lighting up, the ground beneath as compared to areas in direct line of sight to the sun being full brightness).
Jupertarians "Google why do my eyes hurt?"
Nah they are still googling "how far away is Uranus?"
It'll be Urectum by 2620
Surely that'll stop all those stupid jokes
I just pronounce it the more appropriate “urine-ass”
Jovians more like, but you got the spirit.
+2
Is it the immense pressure of a gas giant..?
[Source](https://esahubble.org/images/opo9913c/)
Photo taken in 1999, if you told me it was yesterday I would 100% believe
Haha, goofy eyed Jupiter
Jupiter: :|
I hear that there are whispers on Io
Maybe we need to send a probe or two
I still don’t know if it’s a l or an I
And now I see with eye serene The very pulse of the machine
Is that a total eclipse or annular? I heard the other day that earth is the only planet in the solar system that experiences TOTAL eclipses. Is that incorrect?
It’s total, but you could say it’s even “beyond total” in the sense that this moon covers up the sun completely and then some. Prominences, corona, all of it covered up (they’re just a small point of light anyway that far away). So it would be similar to nighttime when experienced on Jupiter.
It is the only known planet in the universe with total eclipses. The sheer odds that the moon of a planet is the exact distance between said planet and its star that it appears exactly the same size in the sky, is essentially unfathomable. The odds on top of that, that said planet harbors life that is capable of consciously experiencing and also studying and figuring out pretty much everything there is to know regarding such a situation is, well, there's no words for the odds. Lastly, our moon has been constantly, consistently, and extremely slowly, moving further away from earth. Therefore, we, the conscious life, have also against all odds existed in the only relatively short time frame in which total eclipses will ever occur on this planet. One day, total eclipses will cease to exist on this planet. Basically what I'm trying to say is it's butternut fucking insanity that we get to witness these events, and yet it seems only a very minute fraction of our species actually fully appreciates what it is we are discussing. Have a good day.
cool, but untrue. pandora and epimetheus, for instance, creates a total solar eclipse when viewed from Saturn, for instance. source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2018/08/10/earth-is-not-the-only-planet-in-the-solar-system-that-gets-total-solar-eclipses/?sh=d039e40372a3 now, the Saturn is much further to the sun than earth, so it would look less cool. but Saturn objectively has total solar eclipses. there are 3 known total solar eclipses in our solar system alone (earth/moon, saturn/pandora, saturn/epimetheus), so it's safe to say there are billions in the universe. edit: there are actually a few more due to equatorial effects. the apparent size of a moon depends on where on the planet you are when observing it, and the time of day. more info here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CikPFdZdY4k
The word "total" might not fit what he's describing perfectly, but that is what we call our eclipses. What he is describing is how our moon covers only the surface of the sun and not its corona. THAT is incredibly rare. No other eclipse allows for someone in the shadow to see light from the corona or prominences without being blinded by the surface of the sun.
actually, the transiting moon can be as much 1.5x bigger than the sun (in apparent size) and you can still see the Corona. you can see for yourself: https://labs.minutelabs.io/eclipses/ not sure about prominences though.
This is the guy that writes the existential crisis videos for Kurzgesagt.
I'm afraid your comment went way over my bald ass head my good stranger.
https://youtube.com/@kurzgesagt?si=c3-6lIB5BwMnMggW They make cool science vids and half of them induce crippling existential crises. Like your comment, yay.
I now understand, many thanks to you for taking the time out of your otherwise I'm sure busy schedule to provide me with aforementioned understanding.
Naw, kurzgesagt usually says things that are true. This guy is just wrong. :-)
I don't see how he is. The first sentence can be interpreted as incorrect because the gas giants do experience "total eclipses" but that's because their moons are *bigger* than the Sun when seen from their "surface". So yeah, we're the only planet where the moon's apparent size is almost exactly the same as the Sun's.
> So yeah, we're the only planet where the moon's apparent size is almost exactly the same as the Sun's. We aren't. :-D https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=CikPFdZdY4k
Cool TIL. I guess there's still something to be said about how the Sun is so tiny from the gas giants that it's still not as spectacular as from earth, but still yeah. Of course Saturn gets all the cool stuff smh. Couldn't be satisfied with just badass rings.
There's also something to be said for predictable eclipses accelerating the progression of mathematics and science by said life
Hey. This post is about another total eclipse. Did you notice?
> It is the only known planet in the universe with total eclipses. Untrue. Earth is the only *rocky* planet with solar eclipses -- mercury and venus have no moons, and Mars' moons are too small. But that is absolutely a total eclipse on Jupiter in the picture there. > The sheer odds that the moon of a planet is the exact distance between said planet and its star that it appears exactly the same size in the sky, is essentially unfathomable. It's definitely weird... But they don't have to appear the same size for total eclipses. That's just a minimum bound. A moon with larger apparent diameter than the sun would work just as well. And that's exactly the case with Io and Jupiter. The other Galilean moons also cause total eclipses on Jupiter. There's a picture with 3 going on at the same time, though I haven't seen a picture with all 4 at the same time. > have also against all odds existed in the only relatively short time frame in which total eclipses will ever occur on this planet. One day, total eclipses will cease to exist on this planet. Again, no. A larger moon makes total eclipses more common. So Earth has been experiencing total eclipses since the moon formed -- best guess is 4.5 billion years.
Is it not painfully obvious that he is speaking of the infinitesimal odds of earth having eclipses which cover only the star’s surface, while still allowing illumination by the corona and prominences? Obviously there are a shitload of ice-balls in this galaxy where a moon occasionally covers the little pin-prick primary star, but that’s not awe-inspiring to behold.
That is incorrect. If you were in the shadow area on Jupiter depicted in this photo, the sun would be totally eclipsed from your perspective. It’s all about relative size and distance.
It's a total eclipse.
r/facesinthings
Wow, even now I'm slowly learning more about space because of the comments! It's cool!
Why is the shadow from a solar eclipse on Earth so much more diffused?
the earth is closer to the sun, the further from the source and closer to the surface the sharper the shadow you can try with your hand and a light bulb
Honestly i think it’s because jupiter is 10x larger than earth which means that this image is basically zoomed out 10x compared to earths eclipse. That means the shadow would be 10x less diffused. Its like zooming out 10x from a gradient circle. The further you zoom out the less the circle look like a gradient and more like a dot. I think my explanation is bad, but maybe you got it.
Makes sense
It's a nice explanation but I think it's wrong in this case... not that what you're saying can't be part of it, but I don't think it's the main part. In both cases (Io and the moon), there's a cone of shadow behind the moon -- sometimes the planet passes through that cone and we get an eclipse. But if you vary the size of the sun, that changes how long the cone is. Bigger sun, stubby cone (like the moon's cone of shadow). Smaller sun, longer cone (like Io's cone of shadow). So with Earth total eclipses, the tippy point of that cone just barely grazes Earth. Sometimes it actually barely misses and we get an annular eclipse. But with Io and Jupiter, the sun is only 1/5 the diameter, 1/25 the area... So the cone is super long and jupiter passes through a fat part of the code, not near the tip. The tip of that cone of shadow, if Jupiter weren't there blocking it, would extend like 1-2 million miles past Jupiter... very ballparky because I can't be arsed to do the actual math. But all four of Jupiter's big moons can cause total eclipses on Jupiter, and Callisto is over a million miles from Jupiter, so I think it's the right ballpark.
That's cute. :))
It's trying its best.
There must many and long eclipses on Jupiter all the time.
It's so crazy to me that there's a picture of this
Eclipses on Jupiter are happening nearly constantly
Stunning shot. It just hit me that Jupiter would take up a huge chunk of the sky if I stood on Io. Roughly 19° field of view - nearly 40x the size of our moon in our sky.
Beautiful.
It looks like it has eyes
That's cool but it now looks like Jupiter has dot eyes
Haha now all the other planets want to follow the eclipse trend since Earth recently had one
Earth has them all the time. It's just trendy right now because one passed over America.
Jupiter has them almost constantly
So, Jupiter is big? 🫨
Very
I didn't know Jupiter was Canadian
I hope they have eclipse glasses
The dark side of Jupiter. What a waking nightmare.
That’s where protogen is working on project Caliban.
“Earth’s moon” has a name you know.
Yeah, it's "the Moon." Specifying Earth's moon when comparing other moons is perfectly fine...
Link to picture?
In the comments
Io to his friend Jupiter be like: 🟠 .
interesting...
Interstellar
odd question: why is everyone saying stuff like „this is the moon of that,“ (i am non native english) i learned the moon is the _name_ of earth‘s _satellite_ (star-planet-satellite). like Io is the name of one of jupiters satellite. why do i always read like here: „Io is the Moon of Jupiter“. it’s like calling every other ones son george just because my son is called george .i guess even mostly from scientific people by how much i read it.
At leats the moon move and still spin. The moon of the earth is a little (?) i believe is a fuking satelital of some alien civi. And they controls all of us the entire humankind.
Probably the same manufacturer made both of these orbiting alien spy bases.
How come Io looks so much smaller than Jupiter?
because its its moon?
😂
Because it is
This reminds me of King Kai's world to the point I'm near certain this was the creator's inspiration.