10 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 35.5 ms ] thread
They stood on the buildings and checked if the sun was completely covered, nothing interesting about shadows etc
(comment deleted)
I disagree. It's interesting to me that the data from the observers provided this information:

"Everyone above 96th Street saw the moon completely covering the disk of the sun, though no one below 96th street was able to do so. That experience represented a victory in measurement: The eclipse’s southern border could be pinpointed to within 225 feet, or the distance between 230 Riverside Drive and 240 Riverside Drive. The shadow’s border was literally caught between two buildings, each on its own city block."

Aren't the movement of the earth and sun so predictable that we could have simulated this outcome to a similar degree of accuracy?
Experiments like this are how you confirm whether or not your predictions are accurate.
Grrr. They were scientists, not "researchers". They may have been scientists engaged in astronomical research, but that makes them actual scientists.
Not all scientists are researchers and not all researchers are scientists, these people where both. So there's nothing wrong with calling them researchers.
What is the difference researchers and scientists?
Researchers conduct research, but that can include things outside of the natural sciences like recent history. What are period appropriate clothes for people working on a whaling ship?

Scientist: “a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.”

Plenty of scientists have pure educational, administrative, or advisory roles. Handing out grant money for example needs an expert aware of the current research.

(comment deleted)