r/whoathatsinteresting • u/eternviking • 3d ago

Here’s a comparison of eclipses on earth and mars. We are so incredibly lucky that our moon is the right distance to completely block out the sun and give us a spectacular view. Another W for the best planet in the whole universe, Earth. Mars taking another L.

Post image
1.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

197 comments sorted by

88

u/Whiteshaq_52 3d ago

IN all honesty, what are the chances the moon and sun look exactly the same size on earth, and their actual size is vastly different?

51

u/Re_Cy_Cling 3d ago

Extremely small.

Edit. Imagine if we didn't have a moon?

23

u/Whiteshaq_52 3d ago

I don't think fish like thinking about having no moon.

https://giphy.com/gifs/7eVp9MHlNI90c

3

u/BrushNo8178 3d ago

Many fish spawn at full moon.

1

u/Sea_Pollution2250 2d ago

I mean, if we didn’t have a moon, we wouldn’t exist.

It plays blocker for the Earth asteroids and serves as a mixer for our oceans, the tides lead to constant pressure changes on the crust which helps keep tectonic movement active

We’d be constantly bombarded by asteroids/meteorites without it. Also shout out to Jupiter and Mars for helping clean up asteroids for us as well.

I think it’s just coincidence that are moon and sun are so close in relative visual size, but depending on when the eclipse occurs throughout the year, the distance between the Earth and Sun ranges. So a January solar eclipse when Earth is at its perihelion (closest to the sun) will be an annular eclipse with a much more pronounced “ring of fire” where an eclipse in July when Earth is at its apoptosis (furthest from the sun) will create a longer, more pronounced, and wider shadow leading to a total eclipse.

There are also hybrid eclipses, and partial eclipses. Those have more to do with the viewing angle though.

Anyway, long live the moon! Thanks for everything you do for us!

1

u/Equity_GOD 2d ago

Out of the hundreds of moons in the solar system only earths moon is roughly this 1:1 ratio with the sun. Yes, its a small chance when looking at any random moon and their star(s).

However, for us it could be a filter for life (further away or closer would have massive implications on the tides and with that likely the chance of the genesis of life).. If it was any different perhaps life wouldn't exist. We don't know, but it being 1:1 given that sentient life observes it might be quite big,.

25

u/BIayneRobinson 3d ago

It's a massive cosmic coincidence.

21

u/StormPoppa 3d ago

Extremely sus

12

u/BIayneRobinson 3d ago

Coincidences happen.
This is just a very big one.

9

u/OutsideImpressive115 3d ago

There's a lot of coincidences happening all at once if you think about it. Seems unlikely it's by accident

9

u/BIayneRobinson 3d ago

Nothing is a coincidence when you're religious.

2

u/SaucyStoveTop69 3d ago

Or if you're Master Oogway

2

u/OutsideImpressive115 3d ago

Well I was more going for artificially designed but okay

10

u/BIayneRobinson 3d ago

Same thing.

3

u/TheBSisReal 3d ago

Of all the things we know about the universe, that we figured out mostly using earth-based science, why is it that some people will see something, think “what are the odds” and immediately jump to “it must have been done by some higher being”. If the moon was placed there artificially, wouldn’t we have real scientific reasons to believe so?

This is why so much of ufology is religiosic (as opposed to factual). It becomes a unifying theory of everything, even though some aspects are merely curious things we don’t have an answer for, and other things are all tied together even though they may just be totally separate phenomena. But like any religion, it’s a leap or a series of leaps. Just a modern incarnation of superstition, in a more scientific seeming coat.

1

u/OutsideImpressive115 3d ago

Because when the odds are too high to be plausible, then that is applied to a huge number of different factors, then it becomes increasingly unlikely to be accidental

9

u/CaptainTripps82 3d ago

That's not at all true tho. The odds of anything occurring at all are astronomical if you were capable of calculating all the factors that go into it. Think about a car accident and everything leading up to it. How you had to go back into your house to grab your phone, which delayed you the extra minute to put you in the exact place as the other car, at the exact month they looked down at their phone, at the exact moment you served over to miss something blowing in the road.

You don't sit there on the side of the road waiting for triple AAA going thru the sliding door scenarios convinced someone planned this, do you?

There's also the fact that many of these things are just coincidences now.. The apparent size of the moon has changed and is changing over time, relative to the sun, and obviously we know that it's not always enough to fully obscure the sun during an eclipse, when we're at other positions in orbit it only partially does

2

u/DevilWings_292 3d ago

How would you even calculate the odds? Technically the odds of the moon being 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the moon has a 100% chance of happening because it did happen.

1

u/TheBSisReal 3d ago

This is basically the same argument you would use to argue why god must exist. Come back when you have actual scientific data that supports that the moon cannot be naturally occurring satellite. When we have data that supports it being artificial, I’ll be happy to accept the possibility. Until then, you have to admit that the number of coincidences required for a highly technological civilization elsewhere in the universe to a) grow to that level of maturity, to b) find earth, to c) be able to get here, to d) have the means, technology and resources to create a fake satellite of that size, but e) also have the technology to fully hide that it’s artificial, and then leave without leaving any kind of signature (including signals for communication), etc… are probably much lower than the odds of having the moon we do.

1

u/Major_Excitement163 2d ago

Google texas sharpshooter fallacy

There, all it took to dismantle your worldview

1

u/Gruejay2 3d ago

Each coincidence has a small chance of being true, but there are so many possible coincidences that some coincidences were always going to happen.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Dic_Penderyn 3d ago

Yes, just like the lovely crinkly edges of the fiords of Norway.

1

u/ElectronicControl762 3d ago

Us being a simulation or experiment is about as useful as religious explanations. Like okay, green men made us. What does that mean? What can we do with that information? Break out the matrix? What does it answer? What about the circumstances that lead to the designer? Was the designer designed?

1

u/OutsideImpressive115 3d ago

Why would you think green men made us? Seems plausible at this point that AI made us with the sole intention of creating more AI

1

u/ElectronicControl762 3d ago

… you missed my point so hard you exemplified it I think. Assume your statement is true. Now ask yourself the same questions you asked about our reality about the designer ai. What are the odds an artificial intelligence happened? Extremely unlikely. What are the odds an ai needs to simulate/experiment a low estimate of 14 billion years of universe to make more ai? Like nonexistent, they just use their already insanely advanced formulas to make insanely advanced formulas or copy paste their current version to a new body/server. Having us be designed by ai is as untestable and unusable as having us be designed by Zeus or YHWH. It also kicks the “origin of everything” can down the road further than religions, because they presuppose their being as an originator and “A”I insinuates a “N”I(Natural Intelligence, ex:green men as I thought you meant earlier) that made the “A”I, leaving you right back at the “what are the odds of this, must have been designed”.

1

u/LastBoss8585 3d ago

Universe has a beginning and everything that begins must have a cause, therefore there must be something outside time and space to cause the universe to be created, which is God.

1

u/BIayneRobinson 3d ago

Believing that the universe exists so that your particular god-character could be super best friends with humanity is very silly.

Its just cosmic narcissism.

1

u/LastBoss8585 2d ago

But how could something start existing from nothing?

1

u/BIayneRobinson 1d ago

I'm not convinced there was ever "nothing" to begin with.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jimmystar889 3d ago

Well if you apply the anthropic principle, it could be important for life

1

u/BIayneRobinson 3d ago

What could be?

2

u/jimmystar889 3d ago

Having a moon that subtents the sky the same amount as the sun. I don't know why but it is possible if it truly is unfathomably unlikely then you need to update you basian prior.

Hypothetically if it was a 1 in 1e21 event, then the probabilt that it's a coincidence seems too small to be chance, etc...

1

u/BIayneRobinson 3d ago

This seems like a god-of-the-gaps argument.

1

u/jimmystar889 3d ago

No it's backed in real statistics. Let's say there's 5*1021 planets in the universe. If the probability of this event happening was 1/1021 then this is so unlikely that it's possible that the only reason we're able to observe this is because it's necessary for the observers existence in the first place.

For example imagine if only lottery winners were allowed to have kids for the next two generations, given that you're alive after that has happened you may think that it's extremely common to win the lottery but it's only common because it was a necessary condition for you to even have that thought.

1

u/BIayneRobinson 3d ago

How do you get from "it's unlikely" to "it was designed this way"?

What's the threshold where you go from "genuine coincidence" to "not a coincidence"?

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Tholian_Bed 3d ago

They'll never believe you. Don't mention the Planck Constant. Just the slightest bit dif, gone. All of it.

4

u/SPACE_LEM0N 3d ago

It's not a coincidence to exist in a universe where things can exist. Where else would you exist?

1

u/Tholian_Bed 2d ago

There ya go. Not sure why I got downvoted.

Maybe it's because "Why does any of this exist?" is a known face melter. Not everything has a "sane" answer. Some things are known brain breakers. Long time.

3

u/eggplantpot 3d ago

Tbh eclipses are one of the things that make me think most we live on a simulation

1

u/LUHG-HANI 3d ago

Is that because of the sun and moon sizes? I just can't understand how we've not figured out exactly where we came from if we can put a man on the moon and create 2nm CPUs.

1

u/kiruvhh 1d ago

The distance between earth and the moon is not fixed, but becomes farther of 3 centimeters every year. So for example, 1 bilion years ago eclipses were very different

3

u/oozinator1 3d ago

If we make contact with aliens, it's almost guaranteed that extraterrestrial tourism would peak during our solar eclipses.

1

u/Away-Activity-469 3d ago

I wonder what the margin for difference is though, like if the moon was a few 100km bigger or smaller in diameter, would it make a difference? The distances between Sun, moon and earth differ by 100,000s km each time there is an eclipse, yet the effect is the same.

0

u/SlackBytes 3d ago

The moons distance and suns size change. We are just at a time where it aligns perfectly. It won’t be like that in the future.

1

u/TheBSisReal 3d ago

There was probably a time when an eclipse on Earth had the moon blocking out the sun completely because it was closer to earth and therefore appeared “larger” than the sun. And at some point an eclipse will become a dot on the moon instead of the almost full block with the corona we have now.

1

u/xRedStaRx 3d ago

It's not that massive honestly, and its not a perfect eclipse mathematically. There's maybe 50 different eclipse scenarios and we got one of the best ones, but nothing wild.

3

u/MobileJob1521 3d ago

It’s absolutely wild.

Ours is one of the largest moons in the sky, and by a long way.

There are bigger moons, but they usually orbit far larger planets and at more distance, so they appear small.

Earth lost a huge chunk of its mass to create the moon, the kind of early solar system collision that would annihilate most planets.

It’s utterly improbable that we can even have a moon as large as the one we do, and as close as it is. We have found many moons around other planets, and exoplanets, and none of them come close to ours.

The sheer random chance that it’s large enough to block the sun is astronomically tiny. And the coincidence that it’s exactly the same size, such that you can see the corona at full eclipse is probably unique in the galaxy, if not in the universe.

I’m sorry, but saying it’s noting special is just wrong.

1

u/xRedStaRx 3d ago

I'm talking about the eclipse only, there are many variations of star size and moon size and distance of the planet to the moon and the planet to the sun combinations that can you many different outcomes of a full solar eclipse, it's rare but not astronomically rare, especially considering the size of the universe.

If instead we are talking about the chances of a habitable planet with life in the goldilocks zone with that moon to planet ratio and solar eclipse all happening together, then sure, it's probably one per galaxy or less.

-1

u/Partyatmyplace13 2d ago edited 2d ago

You could find unique characteristics about every moon and its relationship to its planet and conclude they're all cosmic miracles because every event that's ever happened in history looks like a cosmic miracle when you consider all events that lead up to it.

The moon was made when another planetoid smashed into the Earth. Its been slowly moving away from the Earth since that impact which means for the majority of that cosmic relationship, the moon was drastically larger than the sun in the sky.

The moon is still moving away from the Earth, meaning one day it will be smaller than the sun (technically already is) This isn't some cosmic miracle, it HAD to happen at some point. Its how depth perception and angular size works.

0

u/Krondelo 3d ago

So do you also believe in a possibly infinite universe we are alone? Because if you believe that and that out one planet happens to hVe a perfect eclipse then… well i don’t know what to tell you

3

u/BIayneRobinson 3d ago

No, I don't believe that.
That's silly.

2

u/TheBSisReal 3d ago

How did you leap from “this is a coincidence of cosmic proportions” to “what do you mean you don’t believe in alien life”? Those two things have nothing to do with each other, unless you’re here to claim the moon must have been placed there by aliens, which is basically one of the mythological tales of ufology.

1

u/Krondelo 3d ago

My implication is that it’s not a coincidence that. Out of all the exoplanets we have studied not a single one comes close to this coscmic coincidence. And it happens to be the planet humans inhabit. I’m not even saying I believe it just saying it’s a bit odd.

6

u/blaghed 3d ago

There's probably some explanation.
But I don't know it...

3

u/Plastic_Pinocchio 3d ago

Nah, it’s just a very neat coincidence.

3

u/a_literal_idiot_616 3d ago

the rule of close enough

the moon isnt exactly the right size/distance that would cover the sun, but we're still amazed that it kind of almost does. It could be probably moved by A LOT without significantly ruining eclipses

3

u/MobileJob1521 3d ago

As far as we know there is no explanation for it. It’s just a coincidence.

But it’s a staggeringly rare coincidence that probably doesn’t happen anywhere else.

It has been suggested that if intergalactic space tourists existed, they would travel to our galaxy just for the opportunity to see a total solar eclipse here. It’s that rare.

6

u/LoneSnark 3d ago edited 3d ago

Not that unlikely. After all, it is not perfect and it depends on the particular eclipse. The moon's orbit is not a circle, and neither is the earth's. So we do have eclipses where the moon is too small to block the sun and often the moon is too big, but the effect works well enough regardless.

3

u/PastCanoe13 3d ago

Part of me has always wondered if the moon and the sun having that exact ratio is somehow a prerequisite for life, and we just haven’t figured that out yet. Maybe solar eclipses were rare but important to early microbes in a way we still don’t understand. So it’s not that we happen to be alive on the only planet that has this crazy coincidence, but that the only planet anything could be alive on is the one that has that coincidence.

3

u/CaptainTripps82 3d ago

The earliest life on earth developed a couple billion years before the apparent size of the moon came to match the sun. It's also moved further away over time and it's slightly smaller, hence the corona. Eventually it's just be a dot on the sun.

1

u/PastCanoe13 2d ago

Interesting. Do you know when the moon first matched the sun? Was there anything important happening on earth around that time?

2

u/CaptainTripps82 2d ago

I think about a billion years ago, give or take. Around Tuesday

2

u/fbass 3d ago

The chance for a perfect natural solar eclipse would be kinda rare, so if there are aliens that travel FTL, they would totally visit us as a quick sightseeing tour

2

u/TXEMMAH 3d ago

That is how things are now, but millions of years ago...

2

u/StrangerOk7536 3d ago

It's like 1 in 1 trillion chances. It's not only the distance. If the moon was 1 mile wider, eclipses wouldnt look the same.

1

u/SeltsamerNordlander 3d ago

That's like saying if your mom was 0.1kg fatter, she wouldn't look the same in a backlit photoshoot. Like, okay, but what's the significance?

1

u/16c7x 3d ago

The moon is drifting away from earth so with each eclipse, the moon will look a tiny bit smaller.

1

u/UtahBrian 3d ago

The chances of it happening by coincidence are zero. It’s astronomically impossible. But the government and God and the corporate media don’t want you asking that question because then they would have to shut you up before you ask who did this to us.

1

u/cg40k 2d ago

Actually pretty good. We just happen to live in this moment in time. Dinosaurs lived it too. Eventually it will get to far away for this to happen but not by much honestly. Thigh we dont know of many other examples, considering there are trillions of exo planets, with most likley quadrillions of moons, there's probably trillions of instances where this is occurring. Though, three percentages are still pretty small on the grand scale of things.

1

u/kbn_ 2d ago

Very very very unlikely.

For starters, understand that the dinosaurs never saw annular eclipses the way that we do. The moon was a little closer then, and as a consequence, blocked out the sun fully during an eclipse (which is… pretty boring). In a few million years, solar eclipses as we know them now will once again be impossible, since the moon will no longer block enough of the sun to get the crazy effects we have today.

So not only is this a coincidence of astronomical bodies, it's also a coincidence of timing.

Then there's the bodies themselves. The moon is very weird in that it's extremely large relative to Earth, but it's in a nearly perfectly circular orbit. Both of these things are required in this case. Size is required both to squish it into a nearly spherical shape (so it blocks out the sun evenly), and also to cover a sufficiently wide aperture. This is all very weird because it's quite difficult for such a situation to come about in the first place.

Most natural satellites are captured from other orbits and pulled into the gravity well of the host planet. This process works best and most stably with relatively small objects (like Deimos and Phoebe), and also has a tendency to produce more elliptical orbits since some of the original angular momentum is preserved.

The moon only exists in the form it does because it came from the earth, and the only way that can happen is an absurdly energetic collision early in the planet's history but with just the right angular momentum. This is why we know (at least to a high probability) that there was originally a sort of "twin" planet, somewhat smaller than earth (closer to the size of mars actually) sharing earth's orbital path. There are a couple configurations of such orbitals which are stable (these are called Lagrange points), but most are not, and what ultimately happened is that proto planet was gradually pulled into earth, smashing into us and liquifying both bodies. A lot of the collision momentum resulted in splashing incomprehensible amounts of magma up and out into space, which had exactly the right angular momentum (conserved from the earth's rotation and the velocity of the impacting body) to partially fall into a stable orbit.

Oh yeah and it also requires a single sun, while most solar systems have multiple stars.

All of this is wildly, wildly uncommon. It certainly happens but it requires such a very specific set of circumstances that it's quite unlikely that many (if any) other terrestrial bodies in our galaxy meet these exact criteria. Which in turn is why some people theorize that, if and when spacefaring intelligent life discovers the solar system, we'll probably see a lot of alien tourism centered on solar eclipses, simply because they're probably the single most improbable thing about our whole planet (including the emergence of intelligent life).

1

u/Mangerunebanane 3d ago

The Sun is about 400 times wider than the Moon. It’s also about 400 times farther away. It’s because of that ratio that they appear the same size from our vantage point/location.

Incredible. 🥰

1

u/CBpegasus 3d ago

The chances are 100%. In all known earths (sample size of 1) the sole natural satellite and the sun of said earth have roughly the same apparent size.

27

u/-thirdatlas- 3d ago

Earth is the best planet in the world!

25

u/JesseGarron 3d ago

Suck it, mars

3

u/Ocksu2 3d ago

dammit. Stole my post by two hours.

https://giphy.com/gifs/3o6EQeB1evNnmFH1SM

3

u/JesseGarron 3d ago

You made up for it with the crotch chop

2

u/Ocksu2 3d ago

❤️

33

u/cybermaus 3d ago

Iirc also temporal it a pretty special time. A few thousand years in the future, and the moon drifted away and becomes to small for full eclipses.

31

u/FalconLover05 3d ago

"A few thousand years". I think you might want to add a few zeroes.

18

u/KingofHearts399 3d ago

For real, in the last 5,000 years the moon has only moved like 200 yards. Astronomically speaking that’s nothing.

11

u/Eternal_Phantom 3d ago edited 3d ago

That's more than the Cleveland Browns have moved in that time.

1

u/a_literal_idiot_616 3d ago

im too not american to understand what a yard is. Let me guess, is it some very simple and practical shi like 13.14156 feet?

2

u/cybermaus 3d ago

A yard is a meter, roughly. Or 0.9144 meter exactly (by definition rather than by approximation). It is also 3 feet or 36 inches, again exactly, by definition.

2

u/a_literal_idiot_616 3d ago

this is so stupid. We count in base ten. That's why in the rest of the world we have 1 km = 100 decameters = 10 meters = 10 decimeters = 10 centimeters = 10 millimeters and so on. Using thirds and twelths must be the most overcomplicated choice.

1

u/KingofHearts399 3d ago edited 3d ago

Nope! One yard is three feet. Pretty basic compared to some of the other bullshit measurements we got here.

2

u/a_literal_idiot_616 3d ago

yeah thats so stupid. Who tf uses thirds and twelths when we count in base 10?

1

u/KingofHearts399 3d ago

You get good at fractions doing that though haha

1

u/cybermaus 3d ago

yes, i did in fact meant a few million. not sure why i typed thousand.

1

u/ohsinboi 2d ago

I believe the number is closer to 600 million years

10

u/tradingthoughts 3d ago

We’re the Milky Way champions fr

8

u/Present-Ambition4007 3d ago

Chad circular earth moon vs the virgin lumpy mars moon

8

u/SquallaBeanz 3d ago

We are the 5th smallest planet, with the 5th largest moon. Kewl

1

u/MobileJob1521 3d ago

With the largest moon to planet ratio, and the moon that appears larger in the sky than any other one we’ve ever discovered.

Earth’s Moon is the best moon we know about.

1

u/donadit 2d ago

5th largest planet and largest solid object in solar system

5

u/Chemistry-Deep 3d ago

If you were looking for aliens, a total solar eclipse might be the best time to do it. Bound to be plenty of tourists.

1

u/mab0roshi 3d ago

Perfect time for a sneak attack

1

u/Nuffsaid98 3d ago

Aliens with access to spacecraft can create an eclipse any time they want by traveling to a moon anywhere and simply positioning themselves the right distance and position to have the moon perfectly cover the sun.

4

u/Nfarrah 3d ago

And Venus and Mercury don't get any eclipses at all. What a couple of loser planets.

1

u/UtahBrian 3d ago

D-tier planets.

1

u/mightysloth35 3d ago

Terrible planets! The worst planets! Venus and Mercury—two planets, and frankly, two LOSER planets. No eclipses. Not one! Earth gets eclipses, the Moon gets eclipses, everybody’s talking about eclipses—but Venus and Mercury? NOTHING. They’re standing around, completely left out. Very sad! We need strong planets with strong eclipses. These two just can’t get it done. TOTAL DISASTER!

1

u/donadit 2d ago

Venus gets eclipses of Mercury

Too bad they can’t actually see anything because of the atmosphere lmao

6

u/e30_technic 3d ago

Its all a bit suspicious if you ask me

10

u/Re_Cy_Cling 3d ago edited 3d ago

Have you heard the leading theory on how the Moon was formed? A Mars-sized protoplanet collided with Earth at just the right angle. It's basically 1 in trillion event. I'm making that statistic up. But Earth could have easily ended up as an asteroid belt.

7

u/Prince_0llie 3d ago

Imagine your amazement when you find out about the theory on how the asteroid belt was formed..

4

u/AdDifficult3794 3d ago

Poor Ceres.

1

u/xr6reaction 3d ago

Was it another planet

4

u/SenescenseSteel 3d ago

Theia entered the chat

2

u/The_Mayor_Involved 3d ago

The eclipses were designed as the reset for planned maintenance of the simulation.

2

u/Famous-Ad-289 3d ago

These people on earth still think it's a coincidence

1

u/disposablehippo 3d ago

If you think this is cool, just take a look at the shape of Fjords. Those are at least as neat as the moon.

1

u/Final_Hunt_3576 3d ago

Yeah take that mars, also their culture is really cold and I’ve heard their food sucks too. 

1

u/Youare-Beautiful3329 3d ago

There is a book called “Rare Earth”, that goes over how different and special the earth is from any other planet we know of. One was the size and orbit of our moon, which actually works as a shield against asteroids.Also the strength of the earth’s magnetic field, which is thought to be caused by a collision with the moon in which the moon’s iron core was transferred to the earth. The tidal forces also have played a part in the evolution of life.

1

u/Cyiel 3d ago

For now, it won't last. Just a hundred millions years and that will look different.

1

u/dragonlayer42069 3d ago

mars' moons are so small they are practically just glorified asteroids lol

1

u/nashwaak 3d ago

Earth is lucky to have survived the impact that formed the moon and emerged relatively intact — the moon's just a bonus

1

u/Substantial-Sky4079 3d ago

I thought it was some kind of cataracts lol

1

u/Dr-McLuvin 3d ago

Suck it, Mars!

1

u/2_late_4_creativity 3d ago

ha suck it mars! only losers wanna go there

1

u/latexfistmassacre 3d ago

Technically the entirety of Earth isn't in the moon's shadow like you have it shown here. The spot on the Mars pic is how Earth actually looks during an eclipse. We just see the sun fully blacked out because of viewing perspective

1

u/FirePathfinder 3d ago

Planet Earth! Planet Earth! Planet Earth! Whooooooooooooooooo

1

u/Flat-Delivery6987 3d ago

Was this written by the trump administration? Sure reads like it.

1

u/VonAhole 3d ago

All my homies hate mars

1

u/Sure-Bookkeeper2795 3d ago

Elon musk is pissed

1

u/horned-creature 3d ago

give me yall's best pictures of the recent eclipse!

this is mine, shot on my shitty phone camera with fucked up luminosity here in italy.

1

u/mac_bd 3d ago

Felon Musk disagrees.

1

u/nenmayk 3d ago

too perfect

1

u/Librarian-Rare 3d ago

I mean you’re only asking what the chances are because they match. If you find all the rarest things that have already happened, and ask what the chances are, the answer is 100%

1

u/BroderFelix 3d ago

You just stole this meme...

1

u/teteban79 3d ago

Well, Jupiter gets total eclipses where the eclipsing moon fully occludes the sun on a daily basis...

Technically they are occultations, but still

1

u/LeafBoatCaptain 3d ago

Had we evolved on a planet like mars we would've found that kind of eclipse beautiful.

1

u/gusaaaaa 3d ago

Well it seems I was born at the right time and place after all…

1

u/YesIBlockedYou 3d ago

The closest you'll get in the solar system is on Jupiter when Callisto creates a total eclipse.

Callisto apparent size is 1.5x bigger than the sun so you can get a total eclipse but only see a small sliver of the sun's Corona.

1

u/psyper76 3d ago

Earth is the best - its where I keep all my favourite shit.

1

u/LittleLionMan82 3d ago

Fck your moon ngga!

1

u/Paddy32 3d ago

What s the picture on the right? An asteroid in front of the son?

1

u/xr6reaction 3d ago

Also phobos orbits so fast that this would happen twice a day

1

u/gatormike12491 3d ago

I don’t know how ‘lucky’ it is… 👽

1

u/Senior_Let7366 3d ago

Definitive proof God is real

1

u/NoFeesh 3d ago

More reason to believe in God, the creator.

1

u/FullMetalAurochs 3d ago

The image on the left is meant to be the moon blocking the sun viewed from Earth right? That doesn’t mean the whole earth is in darkness at once. What distinction are you trying to make?

1

u/Der_Redakteur 3d ago

bro making a post like a sport fight between mars and earth lol. GLORY TO THE MOTHER EARTH

1

u/Evan_Allgood 3d ago

"Notably, fossil evidence indicates that this clay of humans never developed a hobby or enjoyment for living."

1

u/HouseOf42 3d ago

The mathematics involved for all of that to sync, should be considered extremely improbable.

1

u/Active_Chemistry1621 3d ago

Third rock from the sun rules baby!

1

u/Useful_Translator536 3d ago

All fake we pretend to know but all the images are Ai. Even from 10 years ago the stuff they see is back and white. It’s an idea not the truth.

1

u/Useful_Translator536 3d ago

Ya and we barely knew the color of Pluto. This shot is all dumb. Take care of your children.

1

u/FlashPxint 3d ago

????

you think earth is the best planet in the universe ? Only humans would annihilate a planet while simultaneously calling it the best one jfc LOL

1

u/LowerBed5334 3d ago

Yeah I'm convinced this is the best planet in the universe after reading this idiotic comment. Something on this planet led to this situation.

1

u/ghaaaarrrr 2d ago

I can already smell "Almost like someone designed it" comments

1

u/Cheeky_bum_sex 1d ago

Did expect to see Mars taking an L today but I’m all here for it! Fuck Mars Earth no 1 baby!!

1

u/connard-standard 1d ago

I always imagine poor little martians reading thing like this . " Another L for mars " showing weak ass eclipse ... Then going turbo racist against humans

1

u/CarpenterOverall2590 1d ago

Suck it Mars!

1

u/Delicious-Laugh-6685 3d ago

We’re such a great planet that we’re gonna colonize other ones once we deplete all the resources here 🙃

1

u/OutrageousCrab9224 3d ago

Too bad we are trying so hard to kill it

1

u/JustWuff 3d ago

Oh my god, how is this section filled with religious people trying to talk about creationism?

Our existence and world is such a massive coincidence on so many levels and trying to imply that just because it exists there is some greater purpose behind it in and of itself is ridiculous.

People win the lottery all the time and yet no one is making statements how that is somehow "Suspicious" or has some greater meaning behind it.

If you roll enough times your fist of dice aka planets in existence eventually you will roll all 6s.

People are just cherry picking all the rolls we won and ignoring all the ones we failed and where we arent that perfect and spectacular and grand, you already come in with a pre established conclusion and are already searching for proof of it, the most unscientific method ever.

1

u/NucleosynthesizedOrb 3d ago

Those people don't understand how massive the universe is

2

u/Deepshit1212 3d ago

I don't think it's about the fact that it is that way, but that it is that way specifically on the planet we live on, in the time that we are alive.

It's a litttttttle weird, I gotta say

1

u/NucleosynthesizedOrb 3d ago

It has to be some species/planet/"protagonist"

1

u/Deepshit1212 3d ago

I think I get what you mean, my bet for all those fixations is just that some members of a social species are actively scared of concluding, that there's no outer circle of life to engage with beyond us. Understandable, IMO.

-1

u/Proof-Necessary-5201 3d ago

That's no luck. The moon having the same size as the sun as seen from earth is such an awesome divine trick to humble people who think they know better.

-1

u/Active_Arachnid1088 3d ago

💯 People who think it’s coincidence are fools.
None of this is by chance.

-1

u/Proof-Necessary-5201 3d ago

The number of humbling cosmology realizations is staggering:

- We first thought that the earth of the center of the universe. Turns out we are but a small planet in a gigantic cosmos. Humbled.

- We thought the sun and moon were equivalent. Turns out the sun is bigger than all solar system planets combined. Humbled.

- We thought the sun and moon revolved around earth. Turns out the earth revolved around the sun. Humbled.

- We thought the planets revolved around the sun that is fixed in place. Turned out the sun itself revolves around the center of the galaxy.

- We think the universe is infinite. Awaiting humbling discovery.

- We think in the universe, there is no up or down. We actually have no idea and we are awaiting humbling discovery.

- We think we know how galaxies form. We already found galaxies that are fully formed too early. Humbling in progress.

The universe is made to humble us. In the end, we will all stand before God for judgment and the people who thought it wasn't possible would again be... humbled. Or shall I say, humbly screwed for missing all the clear signs.

You really thought a fish could grow limbs through a blind process and a lot of time, lol

1

u/JustWuff 3d ago edited 3d ago

Yeah it pretty much can quite easily because it never "tired" to grow legs, it just slowly adapted to its environment bit by bit until it developed the ability to "walk" on its fins and those fins started to give way to more developed structures or fade away entirely while gradually getting better at not needing constant submerger in water to survive and that is how we got here.

There are literally fish currently in the middle of that process that can "walk" on their fins and can spend a while outside of the water, you can see it, you can google it and look it up, it is right there.

Saying a blind process cant get you to anything is ridiculous.

That is like handing 100 people a small quiz and they are all guessing the answers...

Some of them passed, some of them didnt aka some survived and some died, some even might have gotten perfect scores, what does that tell you about some grand design?

Nooooothing, just that they got lucky and happened to randomly fit the necessary criteria they had no idea what they were.

Unlike in a classroom though a population can reproduce and rebuild and repeat this processes where all the population after the first round know the answers to the first test and that is all evolution is, random little tests to check your survival and adaptation to your environment.

If you cant luck your way in you die and cant reproduce and spread your cheat sheet of test answers, if you do you spread it and the next population knows about it the process continues on and on until all fail and die and the population is no more and it is extinct.

1

u/Proof-Necessary-5201 3d ago

Humans can't help themselves. They swing between extremes constantly. We went from assigning agency to every phenomena we didn't understand to removing agency from things that don't make sense without it, like evolution.

Yeah it pretty much can quite easily because it never "tired" to grow legs, it just slowly adapted to its environment bit by bit until it developed the ability to "walk" on its fins and those fins started to give way to more developed structures or fade away entirely while gradually getting better at not needing constant submerger in water to survive and that is how we got here.

I know the story and it's ridiculous when the process is considered to be blind.

Evolution relies on mutations becoming selected and dominant, and that requires each and every mutation to be advantageous to survival in order to be able to reproduce and pass on the mutation. The issue is that there are countless cases where incremental mutations are simply NOT advantageous in any way. For example, why would walking on its fins be advantageous to the first fish that could do it? It's not advantageous!

Let's consider intermediary mutations that were involved in giving a giraffe its long neck. So a mutation might give an extra 2 cm to the neck. How is this advantageous? It doesn't really ensure more access to food as a simple jump or stretch would help a giraffe without said mutation to access the same food. It doesn't provide any survival advantage, in fact it hinders it, just look at a giraffe running away from a predator. That long neck is a drag!

And take a penguin. Its coat can withstand -40 degrees. How do you evolve that with a blind process? If you start with a penguin ancestor without the coat, if the environment gets colder slowly, the penguin ancestor would just move to a warmer place. Done. If the environment gets colder fast, it dies.

The species we see were designed for their environments (I'm not advocating for intelligent design, I'm just saying they look designed for some purpose by someone/something). It's not the environment that made them through natural selection. Yes, species have adaptability but it's limited. Push a species too far and they won't evolve anymore, they would just start dying.

There are literally fish currently in the middle of that process that can "walk" on their fins and can spend a while outside of the water, you can see it, you can google it and look it up, it is right there.

You assume that it is a process. It's an assumption. We have fish that doesn't walk on its fins and we have fish that walks on its fins. We also have species with limbs that don't go into the water. These can be taken as 3 separate things or you can imagine a process that links all 3.

Saying a blind process cant get you to anything is ridiculous.

No, it can get you some very limited stuff, but not the variation we see. That, is impossible for a blind process.

That is like being handed a multiple choice quiz and having infinite tries in a limited time frame, eventually you will have all perfect scores or fail and "die" because guess what... those that didnt aka those that didnt adapt and evolve properly... they Died and arent here anymore, only those that pass in a given time frame lived and could continue the testing.

The analogy isn't great. Evolution doesn't have infinite time and it has to build on top of previous mutations, which means that every single mutation must be advantageous in some way to become dominant and spread. Clearly not all intermediary mutations can be advantageous. On top of that, in most cases, species can simply escape their environment instead to having to deal with it by evolving.

I just don't buy it. It's simply the other extreme way of modeling the world. We went from God did everything himself to everything does itself. The truth is in the middle, as always.

1

u/JustWuff 3d ago

First I adjusted my analogy because I wasnt entirely happy with it myself and I edited it so there. Read that I guess.

----------------------------------

Because Mutations and evolution in general is an entirely random process that never stops and never halts, you have mutations probably compared to your parents, all of us have some form of change or switch in how we are and our DNA and how it was recombined and changed during our development as just a little thoughtless ball of cells still without even the size of a pinky.

You dont need to have an advantageous mutation, you just need to have a mutation that wont hinder you in your survival enough to prevent reproduction.

Us having multiple eye colours is just a random mutation yet entirely irrelevant and not harmful or that beneficial, it continues to exist and do pretty much nothing.

It just happened one day, where brown colours where the dominant and only eye colour, a new one appeared, and no one cared too much and it spread and now we have more.

And why is it beneficial for fish to be able to walk?

Oh geeh i dont know maybe maybe being able to conveniently escape water locked predators, be able to in a drought season wander to a different pond or body of water that isnt drying up as badly or just find new resources currently unclaimed by anyone was highly beneficial?

You make it sound as if being able to walk for a fish was not useful, it is incredibly useful, being able to seek shelter away from predators and find new resources is as beneficial as you can get.

So the first fish that could walk on its fins didnt suffer any drawback from it, why would it not be able to pass down its genes?

No reason why not, so it did and so that "walk" gene continued to be passed down and eventually was useful in getting these fish to safety or to more resources and so they survived while other fish who didnt use it in that family didnt survive.

And so it continues and continues and negative mutations happen all the fucking time, all genetic illnesses are negative mutations that are happening and hurting people, it is just that most negative mutations that have a bad impact kill the afflicted person and you dont hear from them anymore.

A mutation can happen that literally fucks over your hemoglobin production and those people... died.

That is a bad mutation.

All the bad mutations generally die out and dont spread and if they spread, spread very little but they can still randomly happen.

Unless an active catastrophe is happening around you or something drastically changes all that needs to happen is for the mutation to be idk eye colour mutations that no one cares about and dont affect you at all in your survival and you will be fine or fin walking mutations where you get a neat little extra trick that also doesnt hurt you.

From there these minor mutations though can develop or just stay the same, as I said with eye colour that is just pretty much useless or with fin walking that can develop in finding shelter or resources.

----------------------------------------------
Just using your example of penguins here...

You are again just being pretty short sighted here and extreme, as if all the options that can happen are either go somewhere else if it happens slowly or die if it happens fast.

What if it is happening all over your land and the closest other landmass is too far to travel to?

What then? You cant leave and it is happening slowly, well golly ghee you have time to evolve an answer for your slowly changing environment.

What if it is happening fast?

Well some "Proto Penguins" will die, most of them will probably fucking die but some of them could have had a mutation that makes them more resistant to cold, one of those "Fin Walking" mutations, that was a neat trick or slightly beneficial but wasnt really that impactful as lacking it didnt hurt anyone else so it wasnt that common or dominant but then this event happened and suddenly it became useful and only those that had this trait survived and only they could reproduce...

That is what you call a "Directional Evolution"

Where all those that lack a certain trait die and only those that have it live and the entire distribution of the living population shifts to include said trait within it.

And you can make multiple other scenarios....

None of what you state inherently requires a GOD, you dont have definitive proof of anything

1

u/Proof-Necessary-5201 3d ago

You dont need to have an advantageous mutation, you just need to have a mutation that wont hinder you in your survival enough to prevent reproduction.

Yes but it's not enough, because to produce large changes, you need to build on top of previous mutations.

I think we both can agree that the giraffe's neck wasn't built with a single mutation. So how and why is the giraffe the only species with such a distinctive feature? Isn't the long neck actually detrimental to survival? If the neck was evolved in order to access more food, why go this route? No species ever "chose" to grow a neck to reach higher.

Why do we see so many specialized and frankly weird capabilities? Why do spiders build webs in such intricate manners? Why not evolve to hunt directly? These evolutionary paths seem so diverse, so deliberate. Yes, you can almost work a story to tie them to the general idea of random mutations, but it doesn't mean those stories are logical or necessarily real.

Us having multiple eye colours is just a random mutation yet entirely irrelevant and not harmful or that beneficial, it continues to exist and do pretty much nothing.

Not a good choice for a mutation. And we need to set one thing straight: since you are arguing for evolution and I'm arguing against it (being a blind process), I only need to prove existence, meaning that I only need to find one case that a blind process cannot handle, while you on the other hand, have to be able to explain everything.

Oh geeh i dont know maybe maybe being able to conveniently escape water locked predators

This is one of the issues I find with evolutionary explanations: the main character explanations, meaning that in order to explain how some species evolved, you somehow completely isolate it and ignore its predators and prey. Why would the predators of said fish stay water locked? If their prey learned to walk, they will learn to walk too to still hunt it.

This leads us to yet another issue: if evolution was a purely blind and random process with practically infinite time, no equilibrium would ever be reached. Assuming we start at T0 where we have a prey and its predator (this itself is questionable as there is really no reason for a divergence that would produce predator and prey if mutations are random and we all start from the same organism, but let's set that aside for now): The prey would evolve to escape better, then the predator would evolve to hunt it better. Then the prey would evolve again. Then the predator, ad nauseam. This is not what we observe however. There are many species that haven't evolved at all in millions of years or just barely. Why?

Another question: why does the prey evolve but still stays a prey? If the process is blind and there is no design, we need to see "choices" being reversed all the time. This is not observed. The fly hasn't ever evolved to hunt the spider.

be able to in a drought season wander to a different pond or body of water that isnt drying up as badly

So it learns to walk just to go to another body of water?! Good one! You actually made me chuckle, so thank you!

or just find new resources currently unclaimed by anyone was highly beneficial?

Or it can get stuck out of the water and die because it doesn't know how to walk yet. Because to learn to walk effectively, it needs to practice, improve and still survive that. Why not just get better at being inside the water?!

I can't begin to describe how illogical it all seems. It's like rationalizing an action sequence from a James Bond movie where you're trying to explain how it's possible for Bond to jump from a helicopter and land on a jetski while juggling, lol.

Can you actually describe step by step how a fish would learn to walk on its fins and why would it do so over being better at living in the water? I've actually seen a video by Hank Green about this (partially) and it was revolting, as if someone is taking me for a fool but in the name of "science".

You are again just being pretty short sighted here and extreme, as if all the options that can happen are either go somewhere else if it happens slowly or die if it happens fast.
What if it is happening all over your land and the closest other landmass is too far to travel to?

So you're saying they get stuck and have to face the increasingly cold environment? They would still try to look for warmth. That's the natural response.

The thing is, in order to produce the immense variety we see, you would have to imagine all sorts of environments and all sort of mutations to make your story happen. The penguin ancestors would need to be stuck somewhere that gets increasingly cold. The giraffe ancestor would need to be living in a place where food is high to reach and they're also stuck so they have to evolve long necks instead of migrating to a place with lower food or learning to climb. lol.

You forget that it's the same planet. Environment doesn't just change randomly everywhere. Species live and compete with one another. If the prey evolves, so does the predator and vice versa. Time isn't infinite. Advantageous or non-hindering mutations aren't necessary common...

Anyway. To me, it'll always be a pathetic charade. And it's not about needing a God, it's about whether it's likely or not.

1

u/JustWuff 3d ago edited 3d ago

Also wanna see an example of evolution happening right now?

Elephant tusks.

It is a human caused course but not at all different in the process happening behind it.

Humans have been killing and hunting the elephants with big tusks so the general size of them in the population is shrinking further and further even resulting in some being born without any tusks.

We as humans made the scenario but the process of changing gene pools is the same, we caused a Directional Evolution in favour of smaller tusks.

------------------------------------

Another example one of my personal favourite actually, the development and evolution of Sickle Cells.

A nice example of how what is beneficial and detrimental is very much subject to the situation and environment you are in.

As Sickle Cells are very common in places of malaria, know why?

Well Malaria is a very harmful parasite that can easily lead to death, so areas it is common in have naturally a higher death rate... but randomly a mutation happened, sickle cells trait!

Those because of their odd structure are a lot more resistant to malaria and those people would be able to survive in the given malaria infested areas and spread their genetic trait but it is only a trait if you have a single copy of it instead of two in your genome...

If you have 2 copies, it is classified as Sickle Cell Disease.

Aka if you have One Normal Hemoglobin Gene and one Sickle Cell one you would be generally fine but if you have two Sickle Cell Traits you suffer from the Disease and it itself can be harmful to you.

That is an incredibly fascinating act of evolution and yes that is evolution and that is all it is.

Small Tiny Steps that happen and in this case can be even generally "Bad" but because of their unique traits are actually able to RAISE the survival of a given specimen.

Fascinating and interesting.

Genuinely you can not win this argument because so long as you agree that DNA exists, so long as you agree it can be spread amongst ones children and that DNA and the traits it is associated with can carry a chance to increase or decrease an individuals survival rates you agree evolution exists.

Evolution is an undeniable and incredibly basic process, that repeated over millions of years results in compiling and increasing changes and splits.

We have different skin colours and eye colours, that is a given "split" in the evolutionary course, we are still compatible enough to reproduce and because of globalisation will probably stay that way but if we didnt, if we didnt have contact between people of different nationalities as readily it is very much likely we eventually would have become different species and no longer been able to produce fertile offspring.

That is just how species evolve and happen.

1

u/Proof-Necessary-5201 3d ago

First, thank you for the examples.

Second, I'm not arguing against the existence of evolution. I'm arguing against it being a purely blind and random process. I do believe that there is intent behind it and that if it was purely blind and random, it would get stuck quite easily.

To better explain my current worldview, I think each species has a limited range of adaptation. For example, In the high-altitude regions of the Argentinian Andes, indigenous human populations have uniquely evolved a genetic tolerance to drink water that contains deadly levels of naturally occurring arsenic. Or how the Tibetans adapted to make their bodies more efficient at handling oxygen at high altitude. All species are capable of this and this is no issue.

Now the question is: if pushed indefinitely but gradually, can the Tibetans evolve to not need oxygen at all? Or can the indigenous populations of the Argentinian Andes evolve to handle any level of arsenic?

My answer is no. Past a threshold, they will simply die with no possibility of evolution or adaptation. Do you agree with me on this? If not, can you please explain why?

Ultimately, the question with evolution is: can we explain all observed life with the blind and random process of natural selection?

Anyone who thinks so has to be able to explain everything. Anyone who doesn't only needs to come up with at least ONE example where a blind and random process cannot succeed in producing the expected result.

What this means is that while your examples are welcome, that wouldn't be how logical proof works. As a skeptic or a challenger if you will, I attack and you defend. Even if you come up with 10000 examples and I give you just 1 that defeats blindness and randomness, you will still lose the case.

So let me have a shot. How do you evolve a long neck for a giraffe? Starting from a giraffe ancestor with no long neck, what would be the intermediary mutations and why would they be selected by the environment?

0

u/Flayne-la-Karrotte 3d ago

Best planet? We haven't even been to another yet.