MERGED: All this Eclipse: Do you have your solar eclipse glasses?

[Riverrick]

It was amazing.

Fun to watch the moon encroach on the sun and then to experience a sudden lights out moment. Memorable.

 

[gsdx]

While the Moon's shadow was over Houlton, Maine, NASA cut into it's live video the feed from the International Space Station.

Check out the Solar Eclipse seen from above.

Even with the ISS travelling in orbit, it doesn't affect the movement of the shadow moving across the surface of the Earth. Amazing how swiftly it moved.

Thanks for the post.

 

[EddMarkStarr]

Even with the ISS travelling in orbit, it doesn't affect the movement of the shadow moving across the surface of the Earth. Amazing how swiftly it moved.

Thanks for the post.

Looked like a scene from a sci-fi horror movie - The Spreading Menace!

 

[NotHardUp1]

Looked like a scene from a sci-fi horror movie - The Spreading Menace!

Looked like Marjorie Taylor Greene posting a Tweet!

 

[NotHardUp1]

The local news just showed people getting married under the eclipse.

I saw the national news last night, and they showed 350 couples getting married in Russellville, Arkansas (where several members of my immediate family live). I have a terrible feeling that the music that followed included Bad Moon Rising.

On a separate note, the news anchor and numerous reporters commented on the moment of totality (as it happened) making them speechless. They quite literally never stopped talking.

 

[cityboy-stl]

It was incredible! I drove 2 and a half hours to southern Illinois and almost 4 hours back (traffic) to see 4 minutes of totality, and it was worth every minute of it. The pictures do not come anywhere close to what you actually see. It's one of the most amazing things you can ever experience. Even 99% coverage doesn't come close. We could see a solar flare with the naked eye. It's unlike anything else.

Anyone saying a solar eclipse is not a big deal, if you haven't experienced totality, you have seen nothing.

 

[rareboy]

I am glad that those who saw it this time around enjoyed the experience.

 

[gsdx]

^ I enjoyed the 'People on the Street' on Jimmy Kimmel explaining what an eclipse actually is (and how it happens). (Hint: it's caused by Pluto.)

 

[cityboy-stl]

^ I enjoyed the 'People on the Street' on Jimmy Kimmel explaining what an eclipse actually is (and how it happens). (Hint: it's caused by Pluto.)

Ah Ha! I knew it!

 

[Rickrock]

The glasses we had were so dark you couldn't see anything besides the sun. We were in our back yard looking over the roof and I could not see the roofline. I did see a crescent of the sun getting smaller and disappear to black, but didn't notice a corona or anything else. Everything was completely black through the glasses until a crescent of sun started to appear again. I did see what they were calling a diamond ring. When I removed the glasses to look about during the eclipse, it did get dark as night but I could see everything around as if it was a starlit night. I thought it would be darker like being in a closet with the door closed and no light. I didn't notice the temperature change, but I may just have not noticed. After all of the hoopla and fuss about the eclipse, I was underwhelmed.

 

[cityboy-stl]

The glasses we had were so dark you couldn't see anything besides the sun. We were in our back yard looking over the roof and I could not see the roofline. I did see a crescent of the sun getting smaller and disappear to black, but didn't notice a corona or anything else. Everything was completely black through the glasses until a crescent of sun started to appear again. I did see what they were calling a diamond ring. When I removed the glasses to look about during the eclipse, it did get dark as night but I could see everything around as if it was a starlit night. I thought it would be darker like being in a closet with the door closed and no light. I didn't notice the temperature change, but I may just have not noticed. After all of the hoopla and fuss about the eclipse, I was underwhelmed.

During the totality phase, you do not need the glasses. You look directly at the eclipse to see the corona because...you know...the sun is 100% obscured by the moon, and you are no longer looking at the sun. You are looking at the moon. You see the sun's corona around the moon.

 

[EddMarkStarr]

I saw the national news last night, and they showed 350 couples getting married in Russellville, Arkansas (where several members of my immediate family live). I have a terrible feeling that the music that followed included Bad Moon Rising.

On a separate note, the news anchor and numerous reporters commented on the moment of totality (as it happened) making them speechless. They quite literally never stopped talking.

I was so happy to view the entire NASA live feeds - both the live-on-the-ground city by city feed, and the telescope (no talking) direct feed.

Two locations standout.

A) Russellville, Arkansas. Hands down the most delightful commentary, conversations and joking around of the entire event. What a lively and dynamic group of people to join at a rare public event.

B) Houlton, Maine. Again, the chemistry between the on-air hosts was pure fun! Despite a cloud cover, the moment of totality rendered the most spectacular ring of fire!

Don't care what anyone says, the best seat in the house was at my computer.

 

[Kahaih]

The glasses we had were so dark you couldn't see anything besides the sun. We were in our back yard looking over the roof and I could not see the roofline. I did see a crescent of the sun getting smaller and disappear to black, but didn't notice a corona or anything else. Everything was completely black through the glasses until a crescent of sun started to appear again. I did see what they were calling a diamond ring. When I removed the glasses to look about during the eclipse, it did get dark as night but I could see everything around as if it was a starlit night. I thought it would be darker like being in a closet with the door closed and no light. I didn't notice the temperature change, but I may just have not noticed. After all of the hoopla and fuss about the eclipse, I was underwhelmed.

People often complain about not being able to get good views of night sky events because of all the artificial lighting in the city. I wondered how similar this event might be.

It doesn't have to be very dark to trigger daylight sensors on yard lights, streetlights, and car headlights. During a total eclipse, I'd expect a city to light up like it would at midnight.

 

[Kahaih]

. . . . .

Don't care what anyone says, the best seat in the house was at my computer.

I think that's true about a lot of things/events. LOL

My mother and little brother used to watch videos of train rides prepared by travel agencies until I pointed out that the views they were drawn in by were filmed from a helicopter -- the passengers on the trains were seeing rocks and trees and the ugly backsides of buildings whizzing past their windows. LOL

Concerts are also a good example. YouTube puts you on the stage.

 

[belamyi]

 

[Peloso]

I think that's true about a lot of things/events. LOL

My mother and little brother used to watch videos of train rides prepared by travel agencies until I pointed out that the views they were drawn in by were filmed from a helicopter -- the passengers on the trains were seeing rocks and trees and the ugly backsides of buildings whizzing past their windows. LOL

Concerts are also a good example. YouTube puts you on the stage.

I find this kind of thinking troublesome.

Would you really want to trade the intimacy and immediacy of a live performance from one of your favorite performers for sitting sedentary, bathed in the blue light of a digital image? It's like the people who go see the Pope when he comes to their city, their phones at arms length, recording, blocking their line of view. Then they go home and tell everyone they "saw" the Pope when all they saw was a tiny digital image.

Next thing you know they'll have computers that think, talk, make art and write novels.

We're moving further and further away from the things that make up the essence of what it is to be a living, sentient lifeform and I find that distasteful.

 

[smokeshadow]

a way back in time, when I was in high school back in the early 70's, I worked in the shipping department for a local photofinishing company. It always amused all of us when there was a big rock concert at the local football stadium (especially if it was Elvis ), the number of rolls of file that ran through the processors that showed an almost black print with just a little 1/4 inch white streak in the middle. That was the picture fans took of their idol. And, enevitably, they would send us the negative for an enlarged reprint so they could see "Elvis's face" A 35mm photographic negative only has so much emulsion; and, can only be enlarged so much before the resulting image blurs beyond all recognition

 

[72-Jay]

It doesn't have to be very dark to trigger daylight sensors on yard lights, streetlights, and car headlights. During a total eclipse, I'd expect a city to light up like it would at midnight.

On another site I'm on, people said the streetlights did infact come on during that short period of totality.
Nobody mentioned it having any effect on viewing.

 

[belamyi]

I find this kind of thinking troublesome.

Would you really want to trade the intimacy and immediacy of a live performance from one of your favorite performers for sitting sedentary, bathed in the blue light of a digital image? It's like the people who go see the Pope when he comes to their city, their phones at arms length, recording, blocking their line of view. Then they go home and tell everyone they "saw" the Pope when all they saw was a tiny digital image.

Next thing you know they'll have computers that think, talk, make art and write novels.

We're moving further and further away from the things that make up the essence of what it is to be a living, sentient lifeform and I find that distasteful.

What you are finding "troublesome" there is simply "humanity".

The most "troublesome" kind of thinking was always considering "humanity" as the exceptional hero, the genius, the good neighbour... it's not even that "Most people are evil."/"All men are wicked.", but that most people are mediocre and mechanical and, therefore, whatever feeds their "material and intellectual" lives (punctual exceptions included in that rule), must be equally mediocre and mechanical, and even the excellent is perceived through their own mediocrity; so, no matter how "exceptionally good" someone or something is, it is always reduced to that mechanical mediocrity, to whatever defective sense of excellence that people have in their minds: Mozart is trite and only for people who consider themselves more intelligent, or simply "rotten old-fashioned music", and gastronomy is just overblown fancy-fartsy snobishness.
Again, the exception to that rule is excellence truly perceived and developed as geekiness concerning, for example, cars or sports or gunZ (bodily or mechanical).

So it was only a question of time (time longtime overdue) that, in the era of democracy and technological "innovativeness", machines would end up doing all the mechanical work that always, only faute de mieux, had to be done by SOME humans for the MASS of humans.

It is also worth pointing out that other "troublesome" way of considering any "intellectual production" as "immaterial": a Beethoven symphony or a novel, even an orally told tale, are not "immaterial"... not merely because they are sound or printed characters, but because their "intellectual quality" is the same as that of an indisputably very material painting, sculpture or building: that "immaterial" quality is, in all the cases, in your own mind, given rise to through a material medium. So what is "immaterial" would be your perception and opinion of them, not the material quality, the material object, that is at the origin of those perception and opinions, and is what you actually may consider "[world] heritage" worthy of preservation through the ages.

In short, people have commonly confused the CAPACITY of being excellent with some supposed "essence" of drudging, perfunctory everydayness. It's like one of the last frontiers, if not the very last, of all the fallen myths like the autonomy of conscience, the rationality of people, the centrality of the Earth, the biological origin of humanity...

Yet shorter: "democracy", "science" or "aesthetics" are "too good for the good of people's good".

 

[belamyi]

What Peloso is finding "troublesome" ^^there^^ is, simply, "humanity".

The most "troublesome" kind of thinking is considering always "humanity" as the exceptional hero, the genius, the good neighbour... it's not even that "Most people are evil."/"All men are wicked.", but that most people are mediocre and mechanical and, therefore, whatever feeds their "material and intellectual" lives (punctual exceptions included in that rule), must be equally mediocre and mechanical, and even the excellent is perceived through their own mediocrity; so, no matter how "exceptionally good" someone or something is, it is always reduced to that mechanical mediocrity, to whatever defective sense of excellence that people have in their minds: Mozart is trite and only for people who consider themselves more intelligent or, else, too mediocre because it is not convoluted enough for mediocre snobbish minds who consider intellectual excellence necessarily tied to convolutedness like that of Wagner Glenn Gould, or simply "rotten old-fashioned music", and gastronomy is just overblown fancy-fartsy snobishness.
Again, the exception to that rule is excellence truly perceived and developed as geekiness concerning, for example, cars or sports or gunZ (bodily or mechanical).

So it was only a question of time (time longtime overdue) that, in the era of democracy and technological "innovativeness", machines would end up doing all the mechanical work that always, only faute de mieux, had to be done by SOME humans for the MASS of humans.

It is also worth pointing out that other "troublesome" way of considering any "intellectual production" as "immaterial": a Beethoven symphony or a novel, even an orally told tale, are not "immaterial"... not merely because they are sound or printed characters, but because their "intellectual quality" is the same as that of an indisputably very material painting, sculpture or building: that "immaterial" quality is, in all the cases, in your own mind, given rise to through a material medium. So what is "immaterial" would be your perception and opinion of them, not the material quality, the material object, that is at the origin of those perception and opinions, and is what you actually may consider "[world] heritage" worthy of preservation through the ages.

In short, people have commonly confused the CAPACITY of being excellent with some supposed "essence" of drudging, perfunctory everydayness. It's like one of the last frontiers, if not the very last, of all the fallen myths like the autonomy of conscience, the rationality of people, the centrality of the Earth, the biological origin of humanity...

"Democracy", "science" or "aesthetics" are "too good for the good of people's good", and democracy and art and science for the people would be end up being eaten by the people, something that elites always knew and was at the base of their contempt for the great unwashed, even in the cases in which those elites were themselves also mediocre and mechanical, since that is ultimately part of our human "essence" (not everyone is perfectly good or a genius all the time); it is a truth usually considered through someone's particular, individual case: "he dresses too well, you have too good a taste for your own good", but it derives from the ultimate "human essence", mediocrity being part of "human evil".