on the solar eclipse

on the near-full solar eclipse (in our area) on Monday, August 21st. 

My one observation: It was really cool, but I can't believe how bright it was, even with 6% of the sun visible! 

A number of cool articles and resources: 

The most important: Is it coincidence/random or (weak) evidence for intelligent design? The sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away. Of the other moons we can see, none come close to this co-inky-dink. Some fun with atheists who have some trouble with awe and beauty-- akin to the theist's struggle with a good God allowing pain and suffering. 

Kathleen Parker on how the eclipse made life normal again-- at least for her, but maybe for all of us (at least for a while). 

Some fun from Reason on the anti-science and "pro" science folks.  

Some macro and micro economics: the eclipse was like a free festival-- and thus, good for the economy, by encouraging voluntary, mutually-beneficial trades.

Time magazine with a simulation of what you'll see at various zip codes over time. UPDATE: The simulation greatly exaggerated the darkness that would accompany a 94% eclipse!

IUS throwing an eclipse party

10 things to remember from MSN

Pop culture refs: Brian Regan on the sun; and Bonnie Tyler with this pop/cult classic that we used to sing way too loudly and with a have-to-watch-unwatchable video to boot

And unfortunately Neil DeGrasse Tyson has gone more pop culture and politics than science: his tweet was sad; this Babylon Bee reply was funny-- while this reply from Butch Porter is awesome and useful. 


the mathematics is based on some pretty sound science. Gravity is a physical phenomenon, and basically orbits are determined based on Newton's Laws of motion, Kepler's laws of planetary motion... that science (one of the four forces of nature) feeds the mathematical models which predict the geometry of when things are going to be where...

But...none of those things apply to climate science. The models that they use have not been derived from different sources independently and they haven't accurately predicted ... well...anything.

If they had, we wouldn't be having these conversations over and over again. The fact that the eclipse could predict to within SECONDS and practically to the square meter when the eclipse was going to start and end tells you that the science is "settled" on the relationship between the three objects in question, and the gravity that drives it, and of course the geometry that maps out the paths.

Meanwhile, the climate scientists have been wrong on simply every prediction... storms, glaciers, temperatures... you name it. Why? Because the science is NOT settled, because when it comes to temperature and climate there are a TON of other factors...with an eclipse, seriously...it's just gravity. Almost nothing else is at play...

The fact that someone who calls himself an astronomer doesn't understand this basic fact...is STARTLING, and it tells you all you need to know about how politicized his rhetoric has become.