The August supermoon will shine brightly in the night sky on Sunday and marks the second of three such full moons for the summer — but there is another reason to take note of the event. In terms of timing, August's full moon will occur within the hour the moon reaches perigee, or its closest point to Earth.
But is it a "supermoon?"
From Space.com:
"...it seems that every time a full moon coincides with perigee, it is referred to as a supermoon.
Once a year the moon turns full within a few hours of perigee. After this Sunday, the next time this will happen will be on Sept. 28, 2015. But really, shouldn't we reserve such an honorific title only for those full moons that come exceptionally close to Earth (as in 2011)?
And now we are "watering down" the supermoon definition even more ... last month's full moon on July 13 as well as next month's full moon on Sept. 8 are also being branded as supermoons, seemingly because they fall within 90 percent of moon's closest approach to Earth, or to put it in other words, within the top 10 percent of the closest full moons. Even some NASA websites now endorse this definition. So now in most years we have not just one but three supermoons.
But just how "super" is that?
As Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Director of New York's Hayden Planetarium jokingly noted recently in a tweet: "The perennially hyped name 'Super Moon' insults the legacy of Superman, Super Volcanoes, Supernovae, and even Super Mario."
So what should be the proper definition for a "super" moon? I have a suggestion which I'll get to later.
But first, be advised that Sunday's full moon will occur at 2:09 p.m. EDT (1809 GMT), so Americans will not get to see the exact moment that the moon is full; when it comes above your local horizon on Sunday evening technically you’ll be looking not at a "full" moon, but a waning gibbous moon.
Also, it's time to correct a couple of points that are being bandied about by the mainstream media:
"The supermoon will appear 14 percent larger than normal."
This statement is false.
Assuming that "normal" refers to the moon’s mean distance from the Earth of 238,855 miles (384,400 km), Sunday's supermoon actually will appear 7.2 percent larger than normal, not 14 percent!
THE REST IS HERE.
In other science news, here's a truly ignorant person's explanation for not "believing" in Evolution.
6 comments:
Re: the link on the pastor who says there's no such thing as evolution,
at this point, you really have to wonder: Is it still news when a conservative says something asinine?
“The Earthlings behaved at all times as though there were a big eye in the sky—as though that big eye were ravenous for entertainment.”
Yep, Pastor reminds me of the lunacy of Islam.
The lunacy, IMO, extends beyond
Islam. Fundamentalists everywhere would rebuild society in their
image, one based on writings from
a few millennia ago.
Arcturus his other name,—
I ’d rather call him star!
It ’s so unkind of science
To go and interfere!
I pull a flower from the woods,—
A monster with a glass
Computes the stamens in a breath,
And has her in a class.
Whereas I took the butterfly
Aforetime in my hat,
He sits erect in cabinets,
The clover-bells forgot.
What once was heaven, is zenith now.
Where I proposed to go
When time’s brief masquerade was done,
Is mapped, and charted too!
What if the poles should frisk about
And stand upon their heads!
I hope I’m ready for the worst,
Whatever prank betides!
Perhaps the kingdom of Heaven’s changed!
I hope the children there
Won’t be new-fashioned when I come,
And laugh at me, and stare!
I hope the father in the skies
Will lift his little girl,—
Old-fashioned, naughty, everything,—
Over the stile of pearl!
~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
"Arcturus his other name,—
I ’d rather call him star!
It ’s so unkind of science
To go and interfere!"
I disagree with dear Miss Dickinson on this.
Science explains our physical world so that we can try to understand the beauty of it all.
I prefer knowing to not knowing.
Post a Comment