Heads up super moon tonight
Discussion
driverrob said:
c. 14% bigger ==> c. 30% brighter. That was noticeable.
No view to the East from here but I did see a great red moon set early in the morning. Unfortunately it was through the trees so a photo wasn't on.
Bigger and brighter vthan what though?No view to the East from here but I did see a great red moon set early in the morning. Unfortunately it was through the trees so a photo wasn't on.
The moon last month?
The moon last year?
The moon last night?
The moon has an elliptical orbit and it is never exactly the same distance from the earth at any given time. If the nearest point in the orbit coincides with a full moon, you get a "super moon", but it may not be appreciable bigger or brighter than ther previous month's new moon.
Those percenbtage differences probably refer to the apparent size and brightness betrween the closest point and the furthest point - which I am pretty sure you didn't make a mental note of when it last occured.
"This May’s full Moon is a "super Moon,” as much as 14% bigger and 30% brighter than other full Moons of 2012." See http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-na... or other similar sources.
Eric Mc said:
The difference in size is so small that in reality it is not noticeable.
I was driving from Gloucester down towards the M4 Sunday night and it certainly looked huge as it popped up over the horizon about 10pm. I had no idea it was at its closest, just looked unusually large. As it rose up higher into the sky it didn't look quite so spectacular. Great thing to see with clear skies on Sun night, if I had known about it Sat night I would have been out trying to get some decent shots from the hills.
Its the angular size difference I think is minuscule in this event? (will have a look after)
What was the measured size? Not checked, is it a case of the TV saying 14% bigger and everyone thinks massively visually so?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
Looks like 1360 km closer than the last one.
What was the measured size? Not checked, is it a case of the TV saying 14% bigger and everyone thinks massively visually so?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
Looks like 1360 km closer than the last one.
Manicminer said:
Eric Mc said:
The difference in size is so small that in reality it is not noticeable.
I was driving from Gloucester down towards the M4 Sunday night and it certainly looked huge as it popped up over the horizon about 10pm. I had no idea it was at its closest, just looked unusually large. As it rose up higher into the sky it didn't look quite so spectacular. Great thing to see with clear skies on Sun night, if I had known about it Sat night I would have been out trying to get some decent shots from the hills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion
Need to check the sums as I could not be bothered in digging the book out.
I used this http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm
Using April 22nd and May 6 for Apogee and Perigee respectively it is 29 vs 33 minutes near as damn it rounded down. In degrees it is .49 vs .56
For another close approach in comparison, April 7th vs May 6, it is 33.349 minutes vs 33.476 Minutes. Degrees, 0.55582 vs 0.55794
Considering it is a small object anyway, who can tell the difference if they did not know?
I used this http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm
Using April 22nd and May 6 for Apogee and Perigee respectively it is 29 vs 33 minutes near as damn it rounded down. In degrees it is .49 vs .56
For another close approach in comparison, April 7th vs May 6, it is 33.349 minutes vs 33.476 Minutes. Degrees, 0.55582 vs 0.55794
Considering it is a small object anyway, who can tell the difference if they did not know?
Tim330 said:
It looks bigger when close to the horizon super moon or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion
Cheers Tim, I live in a built up area so rarely see a moonrise on the horizon. Looked pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion
That is a well known phenomenon known as The Moon Illusion. People generally think that the full moon, seen just over the horizon, looks a lot bigger than a full moon high in the sky.
In reality, there is no difference. In fact, a moon high in the sky is fractionally closer to the observer than one seen just after it has risen above the horizon.
It is a form of optical illusion which no one has really been able to identify a single cause for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion
Regarding the Canals of Mars, in the 1880s an Italian astonomer called Schiaparelli thought he saw dark but realtively staright lines on the surface of Mars which he called "Canali", which means Channels in English.
This was mistranslated as "canals" in the English speaking media of the day and prompted much debate as to whether they were a natural feature or a manifestation of engineering by an intelligent race.
By 1910 or so, about half of the astronomical community were convinced that the canals were real and about half of that number thought they were artificial. Many astronomers though, were extremely sceptical and could not even see the canals. Yet detailed maps were drawn up and the canals were even named.
When space probes started visting Mars from 1965 onwards, it was obvious that the canals had never existed and had been a form of optical delusion which some people saw and others didn't.
In reality, there is no difference. In fact, a moon high in the sky is fractionally closer to the observer than one seen just after it has risen above the horizon.
It is a form of optical illusion which no one has really been able to identify a single cause for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion
Regarding the Canals of Mars, in the 1880s an Italian astonomer called Schiaparelli thought he saw dark but realtively staright lines on the surface of Mars which he called "Canali", which means Channels in English.
This was mistranslated as "canals" in the English speaking media of the day and prompted much debate as to whether they were a natural feature or a manifestation of engineering by an intelligent race.
By 1910 or so, about half of the astronomical community were convinced that the canals were real and about half of that number thought they were artificial. Many astronomers though, were extremely sceptical and could not even see the canals. Yet detailed maps were drawn up and the canals were even named.
When space probes started visting Mars from 1965 onwards, it was obvious that the canals had never existed and had been a form of optical delusion which some people saw and others didn't.
Had the chance to look through the Greenwich 28" at Mars. It was hard trying to make out details, there were probably no details anyway, I suspect the night we looked there was a bit of a storm.
Edit. And it is tricky to make anything out anyway. My 8" shows a blob. (someone going to snigger at that)
Edit. And it is tricky to make anything out anyway. My 8" shows a blob. (someone going to snigger at that)
Edited by jmorgan on Saturday 12th May 16:22
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff