d. more often because there wouldnt be as much surface areas to cover, so more often it would be fully covered.
2007-03-08 13:31:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Betsy 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
If the moon were smaller, there would be a bigger ring of sun around the moon during an eclipse, so it would never be total. The way thing are now, we only see the corona which is the outer-most layer, but if the moon was smaller we would see a wide ring around the moon. I guess the answer wold be (a.)
2007-03-08 13:36:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by misoma5 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
If the orbit of the Moon stayed the same as it is now, the number of lunar eclipses would stay the same. Solar eclipses would not be total, however.
2007-03-08 16:32:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by NJGuy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
D, the smaller the moon, the more chance it has in passing the earths umbra (shadow) as a total
2007-03-08 21:59:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Assuming the orbit was the same, the number of eclipses would be the same but more of them would be total.
2007-03-08 21:03:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Iridflare 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
A) the photosphere would appear too bright when it is a lrge ring, so viewing the ecipse would be impossible with the naket eye
2007-03-08 14:46:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by Purity 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
a. as it just so happens that the circum. of the moon and the sun match up perfectly, that is when alligned perfectly, if they didn't (that is if the moon were smaller) there would be eclipses just no total ones.
2007-03-08 13:37:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Sarah 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
it wouldn't matter. the moon would not be here. any smaller mass would bounce it away.
2007-03-12 08:01:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by J 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
a;sldkfj
2007-03-08 13:35:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
c.
2007-03-08 13:31:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋