Super Blue Blood Moon: Did Anyone See It?

[Prof Sabi]

From Kolkata I also witnessed it :) BTW our chemistry sir was kind enough to give us a ten minute break to see it.. It was a bit hazy though and not so big as said on the web

 

[Jonathon Groubert]

This is a scientific forum. I would ask that people not introduce pseudo-science into it.

"What is this guy on about?" Well, the terms "super", "blue", and "blood" have ZERO scientific meaning when applied to the moon.

I have been an amateur astronomer all my life. These are all ASTROLOGICAL terms, not astronomical. The former is a pseudo-science, and is not worthy of our interest. The latter is a well-established science that does not use such terms.

"Super" means that the full moon occurs when the moon is at the closest part of its orbit to the earth. If you haven't noticed, the past three full moons have been "super". Wow, isn't that just super? More to the point, the difference in size between a stupidmoon, oops, "supermoon" and a regular full moon is 7%. Your eyes are incapable of detecting that difference. Why? Because the regular-sized moon isn't right next to it to compare it to.

"Blue" means that the it is the second full moon in a calendar month. This is utterly meaningless to astronomers.

"Blood" means that there is a lunar eclipse occurring. It's more scientifically correct to simply say that than to start using the word blood.

Finally, unlike solar eclipses, where totality is only viewable in a narrow band, a total lunar eclipse is viewable from about half the Earth at a time. In fact, from anyone given point - meaning, wherever you live - you can see a total lunar eclipse every 18 months. That 18 months doesn't take into consideration that the lunar eclipse might be clouded out, or that it might be at an inconvenient time to view. So it would be safe to say that you can see one every 4-5 years or so.

 

[davenn]

This is a scientific forum. I would ask that people not introduce pseudo-science into it.

Considering this was your first post to PF, I would suggest that you lighten up a bit
instead of attacking people !

 

[Jonathon Groubert]

Sorry, not sorry, dave; I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

Pseudo-science BS has NO PLACE on a scientific forum like this. NONE. As an astronomer, I have had it up to here with this constant barrage of pseudo-scientific nonsense. It is dumbing down our country. I refuse to hold back in calling it out wherever I can.

 

[Baluncore]

This is a scientific forum. I would ask that people not introduce pseudo-science into it.

Welcome to PF.

Popular terms are not pseudo-science. They enable inclusive discussion of science without alienation by scientific jargon.

More to the point, the difference in size between a stupidmoon, oops, "supermoon" and a regular full moon is 7%.

If you were scientific you would have specified if that difference was in diameter or area. If your 7% specified diameter, then the area in steradians would be 14% greater. Applying the inverse square law explains why a full moon at perigee give people on Earth significantly more moonlight than usual. That is probably important for hunters, thieves, military operations and romantic poets.

The mean distance of Moon's orbit is about 385.0 Mm. Average perigee 362.6 Mm. Change in range gives a diametral change of 6.18%, not your quoted 7%. Maximum perigee 356.4 Mm gives a maximum change of 8.0%. You have been unscientific and “cherry picked” or exaggerated your quoted percentage.

"Blue" means that the it is the second full moon in a calendar month. This is utterly meaningless to astronomers.

It is not meaningless when it serves to highlight the differences between the many different calendars used on Earth. Prediction of astronomical observations require several intelligent calendar conversions.
Without the term “blue moon” the structure of the moonths in the different calendars would be hard to introduce and explain.

What is the scientific explanation of the popular term "harvest moon" ?

"Blood" means that there is a lunar eclipse occurring. It's more scientifically correct to simply say that than to start using the word blood.

Blood refers to the colour of the light reflected from the Moon. The fact that the light has been refracted by the Earth's atmosphere, with a greater scattering loss at the blue end of the spectrum, is quite an interesting observation, and leads to discussion of rainbows.

Science explains why the shadow of the Earth on the Moon is redish and not jet black, and why we can see the dark part of a half moon with light reflected from the Earth.

Is the dark part of a half moon slightly bluer because reflection and scattering from Earth do not involve refraction ?
How much light do we need before we begin to discern colour ?

Popular terms are NOT pseudo-science.

 

[berkeman]

Sorry, not sorry, dave; I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

Pseudo-science BS has NO PLACE on a scientific forum like this. NONE. As an astronomer, I have had it up to here with this constant barrage of pseudo-scientific nonsense. It is dumbing down our country. I refuse to hold back in calling it out wherever I can.

Thread closed for 25ns for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

After very strange newbie troll ban, thread is re-opened.

 

[tonymark]

Have a look at this video:

amazing video! pleasure and strange feelings at the same time)

 

[sophiecentaur]

It's a Panasonic digital camera.

Panasonic make a range of digital cameras. What does "60X"mode mean - really? 60 times what? 60 times the size of an object when shot at the widest zoom. But what would that have been? The best you can probably do is print the full frame with the moon in the middle and some object of known size on the ground if you want to indicate the size. Then print the same picture for a non-super Moon.
To be honest, though, sometimes the apparent size of a setting Moon can be unbelievably huge. You have to do the extended finger test to re-calibrate your perception of angle subtended.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Panasonic make a range of digital cameras. What does "60X"mode mean - really? 60 times what? 60 times the size of an object when shot at the widest zoom. But what would that have been? The best you can probably do is print the full frame with the moon in the middle and some object of known size on the ground if you want to indicate the size. Then print the same picture for a non-super Moon.
To be honest, though, sometimes the apparent size of a setting Moon can be unbelievably huge. You have to do the extended finger test to re-calibrate your perception of angle subtended.

Read this: https://www.panasonic.com/middleeas...gital-cameras-point-shoot/dmc-fz70.specs.html

 

[sophiecentaur]

Read this: https://www.panasonic.com/middleeas...gital-cameras-point-shoot/dmc-fz70.specs.html

Thanks. As I thought, that's the range of zooming. As far as the Moon images go, it's fairly arbitrary as 60X is not going to be Angular Magnification compared with a standard human eye. Actual size of an astronomical image can only be described in terms of angle subtended.
So take pictures at different times of the year and, with the same zoom setting and with no cropping, compare the sizes of the images. Take two images on the same night with one high in the sky and one near the horizon to prove to yourself that the apparent size difference is a illusion.
We are actually pretty useless at judging absolute sizes in the absence of a reference (even when choosing a pair of new jeans.