← Back to context

Comment by bunderbunder

1 day ago

It’s more like, if the moon were much farther away then total solar eclipses wouldn’t happen at all. But the opposite is not true. If it were closer than total solar eclipses would be more common.

It is an interesting coincidence. But the statistician in me feels like calculating the probability is a bit spurious. For one, not all combinations of distance and size are equally likely, and running physical simulations to try and get decent Monte Carlo estimates of the odds feels a bit suspect - I imagine a decent chunk of what you’d be measuring is the influence of parameters whose values are empirically unknowable.

But, even more than that, it comes from the same place that requires me, when a cashier sees the total is exactly $50 and asks, “What are the chances of that?” to actively suppress the urge to say, “About the same as for $59.37.”

Im not trying to be mean but nothing you said made any sense, possibly because I wasnt clear.

I do appreciate your time and your feedback and Im not great at patience but Im going to try because I am dim in many subjects.

I meant an exact solar eclipse where the Sun and the moon seem to match perfectly.

As such the math odds are low.

Finally, if I ever went to a shop and I was charged a round number like $50, or in my case even $3 I would immediately assume I am being scammed, as that is rare given the context. ( which incidentally happened to me once in Barcelona due to a local spanish barman trying to charge me a tourist tax ).

But I am grumpy and it is late, please forgive coarseness of my reply.