Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Total Lunar Eclipse 148

Posted by michael from the under-a-killing-moon dept.
v@mp writes "I noticed a few posts today about space, which reminded me that there will be a total lunar eclipse in North America and Western Europe on Jan. 20. The moon will turn a deep red color for little over an hour around 8 p.m. on the west coast and 11 p.m. on the east coast. I'll see you all "under a blood red sky"--U2. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Total Lunar Eclipse More

Total Lunar Eclipse

Comments Filter:

  • WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Nice try skippy! But you are so far off.

    The real reason they will not be able to see the full eclipse is because it is SUMMER down there and WINTER up here!

    Sheesh!

    Everybody knows that the full eclipse only happens in Winter.

    On a more serious note. Wasn't there a South Park episode about a full lunar eclipse?

  • The excitement (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    A GIANT SPACE DRAGON IS GOING TO TRY TO EAT THE MOON TONIGHT, AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL THE EXCITEMENT IS ABOUT?!?

  • I gotta get out more (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I just realized that I spend *way* too much time here. My 1st thought when I read the article was:

    Hmmmm, I wonder if seeing a full lunar eclipse will make you petrified?

  • Not chromatic abberation, I'm afraid (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is a nice description of chromatic abberation, but , unfortunately, it does not account for the color of the moon durring an eclipse. For chromatic abberation to make a noticable difference in the color of an eclipse, the moon would have to lie apporximately as far from the earth as the focal length of the 'lens' formed by the light-traversed portion of the atmosphere. It doesn't. A quick back of the envelope shows that it's not even close.

    If c.a. were responsible you would expect the hues of eclipses to change as the moon's ecentric orbit carries it closer to and further from the Earth. They don't

    The reddish color of lunar eclipses is instead caused by (Riemann?, Mie?) scattering of light as it passes through the atmosphere. To a half-assed approximation, blue light is preferentially scattered to the sides, leaving more of the red to continue ahead and illuminate the moon.

    This is exactly the effect that causes sunny skies to be blue and sunrises and sunsets to be red. In fact you can think of the redish eclipsed moon as being illuminated by the light of all the sunrises and all the sunsets all around the day/night line. Not an original thought but sort of a pretty image.

    What this means is that the color of the eclipsed moon does depend on 'pollution', just as the color of sunsets does, but the pollutants in question are mostly high stratospheric aresols of volcanic dust. In fact, this will be one of the first 'normal' eclipses in quite a while, since most of the gunge from Pinatubo et al has finally settled out. Just like we're no longer seeing those nasty 'tangerine' sunsets we've had for so many years.

    -- csh, who's too shy to get an account.

    Note: Above description of scattering is a big ol' hand wave. If anyone gives a fsck post and I'll grab a reference and get the details right.

  • We *did* have a lunar eclipse last summer. Late July I think. I saw it well (but had to get up at 4 in the morning). It wasn't total, but still cool.

    I do hope we get a break in the clouds tonight. The beginning of this week was perfectly clear, now the clouds are in and it's raining. CRAP. But it's supposed to clear off again, so maybe there's hope.
  • Posted by NJViking:

    It was amazing! I think totality was earlier than 11 pm though because when I came out, a bright crescent was appearing on the right-hand side.

    It didn't go totally dark, the moon was a kind of dark amber colour. Like the color of stout when held up to a light.

    NJViking
  • Sorry about not closing out my a tag there. I feel *stupid* now.
  • Yeah, no kiddin. It's freakin snowing here. :(
    Time for me to buy an airplane! :D
  • jd wrote:
    > However, I can't believe that the entire
    > northern hemisphere has got all excited
    > over something that isn't at least a -little-
    > unusual, so can someone fill me in on what
    > makes this different?
    If you think this is bad, you should have seen it when our calendar rolled over from 1999 to 2000 years!
  • Yes. There is. But there would be a lot of stuff that happened *before* that that hasn't happened yet. =) So you can feel safe. :)
    (try reading the book instead of half-remembering it. ;)

  • Just got back in after freezing my butt off after only a few minutes outside. You are correct, get outside and take a look. Sorry, got to get back out to take another look. Wind chill below zero (F), but it is worth the look.

    It is so cold, I think I'm going to freeze solid into some kind of statue. You know, like I'm petrified.

  • The big snow storm in the Northeast will block any chances of viewing the lunar eclipse.

    Intellicast.com [intellicast.com] is the best online source for weather information, especially stuff like the lunar eclipse. The storm will not let up until tomorrow.
    On the StarCast page [intellicast.com] they list the viewing conditions [intellicast.com] for tonight's lunar eclipse.

    --Ivan, weenie NT4 user: bite me!

  • But then again, I'm still pissed at the weather gods for ruining the Leonids.

    Regardless, all is clear up here in northeastern Alberta!!! The moon has risen and I have my camera all ready.

  • You know, it is also my birthday. I was thinking of posting a message similar to this, but instead I will just sulk. Maybe all /.ers who's birthday is 20 Jan should unite? *grin*
  • Here's a question for the slashdot astronomy fraternity.
    What does the earth look like when viewed from the moon during a total lunar eclipse ?
    Has anyone ever seen a photo of that ?
  • When you view the total solar eclipse of the sun by the earth from the moon, you have one factor that you don't have the other way around. That is the earth's atmosphere. You'll get to see a big red ring that is basically the same effect as a sunset. This is where the moon gets that reddish color.
  • I've seen two before, and despite fairly clear skies on both occasions, and despite the fact that I saw it in totality, I somehow failed to see the "blood" redness that people have mentioned. Somebody told me once that the colour was to do with the amount of volcanic ash in the atmosphere. Any ideas on that?

    Oh yeah, and we need some forum to help decide what to do with the numpties who post all this crap at the start of articles... ugh....

    --Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
  • I'll see you all "under a blood red sky"--U2."

    Actually this line is better:

    "I'll see you again when the stars fall from the sky and the moon turns red over One Tree Hill" - U2 'One Tree Hill'

    That's probably an even more ominous, religiously overtoned and appropriate verse/song. Definatly one of the best U2 songs ever ;) And the Mortal cover of it kicks more ass.
  • Bunch of ACM guys and I dragged a couch out to the sidewalk and watched it. It was pretty cool, no really it is -10 degrees F here. I think I am frosbit, damn moon.
  • Um, I've got a DC215 and 32MB memory card. However, I don't see how I'd automate it... And besides, it's snowing out, which means I probably won't be able to see it. Grr. :(
  • I know where you live ---
    Revelation 2:13

    ---------
    To hell with you, I never liked you, you are no friend of mine...

  • I was looking out from under some trees at the blood moon with my father. He is a nurse at a local hospital, and he pointed out, that through the binoculars, and through the trees, that the moon looks like the back of the eyeball. The trees look like veins against the moon. Just a thought :D

  • Err, excuse me. It's not a space dragon, it's a Star Goat. Silly.
  • somehow, even before i read your email address, i knew you were from rochester, can't imagine how though. i must be sike-ick

    are you a csh'r?
  • in agricultural areas, such as where I used to live in Indiana, the moon turns deep red pretty often when on the horizon due to excessive amounts of dust in the air from farming and the angle at which you are viewing the moon (similar to why sunsets are redish). Not too out of the ordinary unless you are in an urban area.
  • Now that's a copout answer....
  • Which begs the question, if "God" is truly omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then why does he feel the need to go through all of these little games in the firstplace. Christians like to thrown around the notion that God sacrificed his only son so that humans could be absolved of their sins, blah blah blah...but if god is omnipotent, then this whole little game of human suffering and sin seems to contradict the second attribute of the Christian god, that of omnibenevolence, no? The devil exists because God allows him to exist, but if god really does want nothing but happiness for his creations, why doesn't he just cut through the bull and stop playing perverse little games?
  • Why would it? Tidal patterns are affected by the moon's gravitation pull, which has nothing to do with the fact that there is a shadow passing over it
  • actually, global warming does have basis in fact. see the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) experiment, which measures the increase in temperature of the world's oceans. this kind of measurement is not subject to the kind of transients that confuse most people trying to draw conclusions about global warming from weather data.
  • i was thinking about the same thing

  • wow. (Score:1)

    by cfish ( 61161 )
    it does look kinda red, from here in Indiana. but what amuzes me most is that i stayed outside to watch it for a full 55 minutes. tempreture: 0 degress. Windchill: -36 degrees. yes, those are ferenhent.

    I too think it looks like an eye ball. For the first time in my life, the moon actually looks 3-D! Usually it looks too flat for a ball.
  • We anti-christ would like to think that this is the day that we come out to party. Since most anti-christ admire the moon rather than the sun, could this possibly be a day for non-christians? Please?
  • We're sure to see dozens of pictures of tonight's moon, but has anyone ever taken a picture of the EARTH during a solar eclipse (I mean from the moon's point of view, of course)? It would presumably be a brilliant red circle, and I'd love to see it. Of course, such a picture could be taken any time, not just during an eclipse, since the earth's always blocking the sun somewhere.
  • from pittsburgh it was beautiful :)
    i love full moons let alone eclipses of it
    --
    dead angel
    i am strange people. -me
  • It doesn't have to do with just volcanic ash. Pollution from our populated and industrial areas that go into the atmosphere are also responsible for some of the redness in sunsets and quite possibly this eclipse.

    Of course, my sources have been incorrect before.

    -Vel
  • The eclipse will be visible from all of the Americas, including Central and South. São Paulo time, it will start at 01:01, reach mid-eclipse at 02:44 and end at 04:25, all AM.
  • from the under-a-killing-moon dept.

    Ah, that brings back memories. That game kicked ass. Ran kinda slow on my 386 though. :-P
  • You know, it's not my birthday. I was, however, thinking of posting a message similar to this and I did.

    Go figure.


    -Jordan Henderson

  • man, i had forgotten about that game, it did rock. remember the first of the series "Mean Streets"? that was the first game i played that talked, sure it used the PC speaker, but it was way ahead of it's time. ahh...retro-gaming.


    -
  • This lunar eclipse will be the first since the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines not to have its color changed by ash from eruption.
  • This lunar eclipse will be the first since the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines not to have its color changed by ash from that eruption.
  • anyone interested should be able to watch the eclipse tonight on the internet at eclipse.visi.net [visi.net] because a local isp and museum are setting up a web cam.
  • Good question. Traditional Christianity has a hard time answering this question (I have asked it also). Not that I'm against Christianity (I'm actually Christian myself), I just don't subscribe to "mainstream" beliefs. But I just thought I would tell you that that is an excellent question.
  • First, realize what position the moon is in during _any_ full moon -- it's on the side of the Earth farthest from the Sun. (During a new moon, the moon is between the Earth and the Sun.) You don't get an eclipse every time there's a new (solar eclipse) or full (lunar eclipse) moon, because the moon's orbit is inclined a few degrees with respect to the ecliptic -- thus, things only line up a few times a year. During the lunar eclipse, the moon will fall completely in our shadow (the umbra) -- we'll block sunlight from striking directly on the moon. Sooooo, it would look like a solar eclipse from the moon -- the Sun would be occulted by a mysterious dark object (aka, the Earth) for a while. (Note that, more generally, an observer on the Moon would see a "new Earth" whenever we are seeing a full moon, and vice versa.)

    A longer answer than you needed, really. :-) I don't know if anyone has ever been on the moon during an eclipse, but I doubt it for various reasons. Whatever.

  • And it'll keep them in PH33R on environmental issues, like the "ozone hole" over Antarctica. Would you call a region of a wall that is a few percent less thick a "hole"? (Not to mention that we're drawing conclusions on global weather trends with a few decades worth of data. "experts" can't even explain the causes of the ice ages.)

    Oh it's much worse than that. A tight correlation of mean terrestrial temperature with overall solar activity has been observed over time scales from months to millenia, but it gets overlooked in favor of computer modelling of greenhouse gas production that ignores water (the predominate greenhouse "gas" in our atmosphere) and has a cause-and-effect problem (the temperature goes up decades before the CO/CO2 buildup is supposed to have taken place, and then levels off) that's skipped over.

    I'm starting to understand how Galileo felt.

  • brrr... this has got to be the coldest eclipse ive seen since Feb '79. looks very red for a lunar eclipse so im very pleased to have seen this. just thought all should know this =] PS /. looks terrible when viewed w/ a Dreamcast
  • Since no one seems to have posted these details, the umbral phase of the eclipse, which is the fun part to watch, begins at 3:01 UT on the 21st (= 7:01 p.m. PST, 10:01 p.m. EST on the 20th). The eclipse is total from 4:05 to 5:22 UT (= 8:05 to 9:22 p.m. PST, 11:05 p.m. to 12:22 a.m. EST). The umbral phase ends at 6:26 UT (= 10:26 p.m. PST, 1:26 a.m. EST). The Moon is in the penumbra (where the Earth only partly covers the Sun as seen from the Moon) about two hours longer, but this is difficult to detect. I strongly recommend not waiting for totality to look. The partial phases add a lot to the drama.

    One note regarding the July 16 eclipse: though the partial phases will be visible throughout much of the western U.S., only those on the coast of California will witness totality, and only for a few minutes at most before moonset.

  • CSH (Score:1)

    by Powers ( 118325 )
    nope, sorry. =)

  • Darnit, it's gonna be cloudy here tonight. Why couldn't this happen in summer, when we at least have a 10% chance of clear skies? =)

  • Lets hope we won't be deluged by old 80s TV movie stars roaming the streets...
  • Not to try to be a member of the glazed over club, but what is Chromatic abberation? Is this the infraction and refraction of the light bouncing through the atmosphere?

  • I kind of interested on how this will affect tidal patterns. Also there is all the buzz about "Loons" and how the human body reacts during full moons and other moon related events. I know that just because the sun is in a different spotbut the news will be doing all their little stories on it, It'll be fun to watch.
  • I don't know. The way I heard it, the Bible has undergone tons of revision. For example, during the days of the Roman Empire, I know several alterations were made to make the Bible more consistent. I think that's how the concept of the trinity came about.

    Don't get me wrong. I think it's a valuable text, in the same way the Greek Myths are valuable. I also suspect Christ actually existed. Whether he was a divine being... I wouldn't know.
  • Well, the skys were 100% clear from Charleston, SC...but IMHO, I thought the eclipse was relatively boring. I want to see a total solar eclipse. I've seen partial but never total. Back in August, Romania got the best view of a total solar...then I showed up there a month later...but I was too late.

    Connah
  • Isn't there somewhere in Revelations that it prophecies of the Moon turning to Blood or something to this effect. Correct me if I am wrong. Makes you begin to wonder doesn't it?

    Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
    NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
    "Get your domain name for only $45" [npsis.com]


    Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
    NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
  • Great. Thanks for posting this. Now they're going to /. the solar system's servers, and I'm not going to be able to connect to watch. Thanks again guys.

  • Actually, it probably wouldn't look like a solar eclipse, or at least not the kind that we're used to seeing pictures.

    One of the reasons solar eclipses (on Earth) look so spectacular comes from a rather interesting little coincidence. The moon and the sun subtend nearly the same solid angle (they appear to be about the same size from Earth). So during a solar eclipse, the moon blocks out the surface of the sun nearly perfectly, allowing you to see solar prominences as well as the sun's corona. Also, there are such things as annular eclipses which occur when the moon is a little further away (and therefore appears smaller) and as a result the moon doesn't completely block out the sun as seen from earth, instead the sun appears as an annulus around the moon.

    On the moon, what you would get is the reverse of an annular eclipse, the earth will appear much larger than the sun, and will completely cover it during totallity. However, sunlight refracting through the earth's atmosphere could be just as spectacular a sight...but I don't think anyone's seen such a thing. I suspect that some of the sun's corona might be visible as well, but I haven't done the calculation, so I don't really know for sure.

  • No it isn't! It's not finished cooking, yet! Now, Earth is just about done, and has plenty of charcoal seasoning, with a sprinkle of sulphuric acid. How could any space dragon resist such a treat?

  • Red Moon (Score:2)

    by jd ( 1658 )
    Personally, I'm wondering what all the fuss is about. Every total lunar eclipse I've seen (ok, so I've only watched 3...), the moon has turned a very deep tan.

    So it's going to be a bit brighter, this time. That, in itself, doesn't sound particularly exciting.

    However, I can't believe that the entire northern hemisphere has got all excited over something that isn't at least a -little- unusual, so can someone fill me in on what makes this different?

  • The eclipse will also be visible in south america (at least that's what the newspaper says).

    11PM Argentina, 10PM brazil, midnight Chile, other countries adjust as needed.
  • I think it would be truly a bonus if he were to take his clothes off, THEN go outside. He doesn't need to wear his pants to pour the hot grits down them.

    Hot grits in the pants, naked, and petrified. What more could one ask for?

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red

    Whoa, a solar eclipse and a lunar eclipse at the same time! It almost makes me wish for the end of the world, just so that I can see what it's like to live in a different geometric system.

    "The moon is red and bleeding
    The sun is burned and black
    The book of life is silent
    No turning back" - Iron Maiden


    ---
  • They certainly should be able to see it in the southern hemisphere! Unlike solar eclipses (where the moon's shadow only covers a small part of Earth), lunar eclipses are widely observable because you are watching the Earth's shadow cover the Moon. The real difference is that solar eclipses are seen when *you* are covered by the moon's shadow, lunar eclipses are seen when the moon is covered by the Earth's shadow. It's much easier to see the shadow cast by an object than to lie within that same shadow.

    And, as you state, it *is* the same moon, it's just upside down ;) (no, really, it is! or at least appears to be)
  • Consider the fact that there have been (literally)
    hundreds (if not more than a thousand) total lunar eclipses in the past 2000 years, I'm not all that worried. Assuming it stays clear, this will be my fourth total lunar eclipse. I'm all for them!

    Eric
  • Really only the former suggestion would make for an interesting loop. Onset to totality takes around an hour, during which you see the Earth's shadow creep across the disc of the Moon. During totality, not all that much happens. The moon is brick red. That's about it. A great picture, but not worth making a loop out of it.

    Eric

  • I beg to differ. Hot grits with no pants is just not the same.

    To explain, I must necessarily digress. Perhaps you have heard of the fine old sport of Ferret Legging [cmu.edu]. If you have not, do yourself a favor, and follow the link.

    When you return, the connection should be clear. Hot grits with no pants is no substitute for hot grits down the pants. Or it that hot grits is no substitute for a ferret? Or that one must never pour hot grits on a ferret down one's pants?

    Oh hell. Now you've got me all hot, flustered, and confused.

    I'm going to go back out and watching the eclipse. Besides, Natalie Portman is complaining that she's getting cold out there, all alone.

  • Amazing!

    If you aren't lucky enough to have a computer set up on the balcony, from which you can see the eclipse taking place (as some of us are), get the heck off Slashdot and go outside! It's worth it, if the sky is clear where you are, no matter how cold and windy it is out there.

    What a fantastic show!

    --Ravenfeather, freezing off his fingers to bring you this content-free news report.

  • Sure...you'll get so cold that you're practically PETRIFIED...

    But just pour HOT GRITS down your pants, and you'll be warm and toasty in no time!

    --Ravenfeather, freezing in the cold wind, typing in gloves, watching the eclipse, and thinking the universe would be a truly wonderful place even without Natalie Portman, Hot Grits, and Linux.
  • When I heard about this from a friend last week, I looked for a webpage. I didn't find the one listed in the above article but I did find a page (also on nasa.gov) that listed all lunar eclipses for 2000. However, all the times listed on that page were listed as UT. What does UT stand for, Universal Time? And is it somehow different than GMT? The GMT times listed in the above article are the same as the UT times listed on the page I read previously.
  • It seems chances to see it in Europe are bad, at least according to the weather forecast. I hope someone will take some good pictures of a red moon and make them available soon (digital or not)! That eclipse site only had small GIF's ;-(

  • The exact times are:

    • Moon enters penumbra: 2:03
    • Moon enters umbra: 3:02
    • Start of totality: 4:05
    • Maximum: 4:44
    • End of totality: 5:22
    • Moon leaves umbra: 6:26
    • Moon leaves penumbra: 7:24

    The times are given un universal coordinated time and apply to 2000/01/21. Add or substract your time zone correction.

    The time, of course, does not depend on the place. The eclipse is visible from wherever on Earth it happens to be night at the time in question. (Naturally, since there is an eclipse, the moon is full, so it is night precisely when the moon is visible, atmospheric perturbations excluded.)

  • GMT is what it says it is: the mean solar time on Greenwich meridian (after correction of the Earth's nutation and pole displacement). It is also called UT1, or Universal Time. This time standard is obsolete and deprecated, because it is an astronomical standard, and is subject to many irregularities.

    The current time standard is UTC, or Universal Time Coordinated, which is defined as offset by a certain number of seconds with respect to TAI (the international atomic time, maintained by averaging a number of atomic clocks around the world), currently UTC=TAI-32s. This offset is changed occasionally by inserting a leap second in UTC, so that the difference UTC-UT1 never exceeds 0.9s in absolute value (currently it is around -0.3s).

    For nearly all real-life practices, UT1 and UTC can be assimilated under the general name ``Greenwich Mean Time'' or (more correctly) ``Universal Time'', but the correct term is ``Universal Time Coordinated''.

    See this page I wrote [eleves.ens.fr] for more information.

  • Actually, the time lords are rather the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures [www.bipm.fr] (International Weights and Measures Bureau) for TAI (atomic time) and the International Earth Rotation Service [obspm.fr] for UTC (who make the decision of when to add leap seconds for example).

    Granted, on last reading, the USNO master clock was only five nanoseconds fast of UTC, as computed by the BIPM (by averaging many different atomic clock's reading of UTC).

  • The last total lunar eclipse visible from the United States occured on Sept. 26, 1996. North Americans won't have another opportunity to see a total lunar eclipse until May 16, 2003. However, on July 16, 2000, Hawaii, Australia and Asia will see the longest total lunar eclipse in 140 years (since 1859). It will last 1 hour and 47 minutes.

    At least according to the Associated Press [yahoo.com], folks on the west coast will also be able to view the total eclipse on July 16. I'm less likely to go with the AP on this one, though.
  • There's not much more special about this particular eclipse, but don't discount the general interest in eclipses of all kinds.

    People usually hate feeling small, but they still get a big kick out of experiencing the wonders of the cosmos (cue Carl Sagan and his billions of stars). People have been awed by eclipses, be they solar or lunar, for millennia. Think of it as a chance to poop on Aristotle's grave regarding his immutable heavens and heavenly bodies.

    At least it's something more worthwhile than a mere date roll-over in an arbitrary calendar.
  • How about polution checks on the shit people spout through their mouths?? *grin* - Can you call NP posts pollution? :o)

    The USA creates 80% of the worlds pollutants, now I'm sorry but whichever way you look at it that can't be good, and is provenly unnecessary. If every other country can manage to cut down the so can the USA, and there is no reason for them not to do so.

    I do however agree with the point that Global Warming is a catchphrase and still has no real basis in fact, but that doesn't excuse causing massive increases in asthma, cancers and other illnesses by pumping out tonnes of carcinogens into the atmosphere. You can't just say 'well global warming isn't proven so why do anything about pollution' it so much more complicated than that.

  • Yup, cloudy here too. You'd think Bill G or Paul A could pay to get some clear skies or something.

    And I've got a rooftop waiting to be used, with a fairly clear view of the night sky ...

  • Whether we do or do not dump too much pollution into the atmosphere is irrelevant to the original point, which was that the moon's red color during an eclipse is not caused by pollution. Preindustrial lunar eclipses were also red. Prehistoric lunar eclipses were also red. Do you see why it is disingenuous to claim that pollution causes the eclipse's color? It gives the impression that man-made pollutants now make up a substantial fraction of the total composition of the atmosphere. In other words, it vastly overstates the magnitude of the pollution problem. It is very subtle fearmongering, but it is fearmongering nonetheless.


    Now, we could easily get rid of all polution overnight. Just turn off all the factories, power plants, and automobiles, and, poof, no more pollution. That's not going to happen, of course, because the result would be widespread devastation. The point is that rational public policy demands a balance between protecting our environment, on the one hand, and protecting our economy on the other. Ridiculous overstatements about the amount of pollution (even if they are probably based more in ignorance than in malice, which I think is likely here) do not further the cause of rational policymaking, and the original poster was right to condemn them.


    Finally, just out of curiousity:


    How about polution checks on the shit people spout through their mouths?? *grin*

    I'm confused. Is the "*grin*" supposed to cause this not to be a rude comment? If so, it doesn't work, in my opinion.


    -r

  • UT is short for Universal Time, natch: for practical purposes is == to GMT. "GMT" per se doesn't exist any more, the worldwide time standard is UTC, the Universal Time Coordinate. For a copious explanation of how time is kept today, you need to see the US Naval Observatory's [navy.mil] web pages. Those guys truly are the Time Lords... it's way cool.
    --
  • A good B/W process film gets much more striking results. Granted, all the technical photographic knowledge I have comes from the courses I took in 'crime scene photography' and 'photographic documentation of evidence', but I have done telescopic moon shots before, and I was much more satisfied by the B/W stuff than the colour process shots.
  • While you were spouting off I dare say you forgot to notice you were partially correct. The angle of the Earth's shadow depends on the season. (remember, kiddies, our axis is tilted!)
  • I stand corrected.

    Please ignore me for the rest of the day.
  • All are very good points! But if you wanted a hard copy of said digital photo, you'd need a very good laser or inkjet and some good photo paper. How much is photo paper these days? Probably comparable with developing a couple of exposures.

    For fine timelapse of a dramatically moving subject I can just use multiple exposures with a shorter exposure time. Locking the shutter open only works for very, very fast action. But at 1 minute intervals I don't need either. Shoot off 24 on a timer, swap the body out for a new one, change the film, come back in twenty minutes and repeat. I'd have to rewind the following mechanism on my antique telescope every half hour anyway.

    The only real difference is that I get the expensive hard copy by default, which I like, and you get an inexpensive digital one.
  • 1. There is only one moon. Everyone (on earth)sees the same moon. 2. Yes, you will see the eclipse, but it will not be even close to total. The issue with completeness of the eclipse is how many degrees from the equator you are and what time it is when the shadow crosses the moon. Eastern Europe won't see the eclipse; the moon will not be above the horizon. South America will see a moon with a shadow across the top half. (Depending on where you are. The farther north you are, the more of an eclipse you will get).
  • Digital camera? Please! Plain 'ol 35mm with a decent 1200 B/W. (NOT colour process B/W) If I use the digital camera, I get a 1600x1200 image. If I use REAL FILM and run the results on a flatbed, I get images three times sharper and five times larger.
  • I'm sure this'll get moderated down...

    I don't know. The way I heard it, the Bible has undergone tons of revision. For example, during the days of the Roman Empire, I know several alterations were made to make the Bible more consistent. I think that's how the concept of the trinity came about.

    Ummmm...where did you hear that? Most of what I've read confirms that the accuracy of modern Bible translations (e.g. NIV or NASB) is exceptionally good. They're based on Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts that remained accurately copied for hundreds of years. For example...

    "The impact of this discovery [the Dead Sea Scrolls] is vividly illustrated in the virtual duplication of the Isaiah scroll (dated 125 B.C.) in the Masoretic text of Isaiah (A.D. 916) written 1000 years later. This demonstrates the unusual accuracy of the copyists of the Scripture over a thousand year period. Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, only seventeen letters have been questioned. Ten of these letters are a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as a conjunction. The remaining three letters comprise the word "light", which is added in verse 11 and does not greatly affect the meaning. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission-and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage. Comparisons of other Bible passages show even closer duplications." (from this site [perimeter.org])

    While the word "Trinity" is never seen in the Bible, the concept is evident throughout the N.T. Some (me included) would argue that it's evident in the O.T. as well, but that's going WAY off topic! Suffice it to say, many liberal scholars try to argue that since the word isn't in the Bible, the Trinity is an invention of man.

    I also suspect Christ actually existed. Whether he was a divine being... I wouldn't know.

    That's good, since historically there's no question that there existed a person name Jesus of Nazareth, who was called the Christ. So the question remains, is Christ a divine being? I am convinced He is. But investigate for yourself, the answer is there!

    And in a vain (too late!) attempt to bring this back on-topic, there are many who bend some of the biblical prophecies to try to determine the time/place for some events. The blood-red moon is a sign pointing to the final judgment, but a red moon is not an uncommon event (rare, but not once-in-a-lifetime). So, yes, this lunar eclipse might be a sign of the end. Then again, it might not. Regardless, I'm ready! :-)

    JimD


    JimD
  • Would you call a region of a wall that is a few percent less thick a "hole"?

    I wouldn't even call it a wall. It's a fluid region of gas that changes depending on season and weather conditions that acts as a filter for UV-B and other radiation.

    "experts" can't even explain the causes of the ice ages.

    Nice straw man. What does meteorological history have to do with current climatic changes caused by emitted chemicals? Have a look at this [brs.gov.au] to learn how ozone loss happens.

    California wants to do just this to pretty much *anything* with a gas engine in it.

    Also look at to learn [scorecard.org] that California is in the top bracket of states ranked by hazardous air pollutants.

    a few percent less thick a "hole"?

    A few percent less than what? Measured when? The actual value ranges from 11-30% during the year, measured by deviation from the levels during the 1960s.
    Over Australia, according to the 1997 State Of the Environment report [nsw.gov.au], ozone levels hit about 89%. This means "the increase in erythemal UV-B radiation (the most damaging for plants and animals) is expected to be about 13%". Don't forget that zooplankton and phytoplankton have no protection from UV-B. If they start dying, the ocean has big problems.

    Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world, both malignant and non-malignant.

    Don't laugh.

    I'm not.

  • Re: Chromatic abberation? (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, 2000 @11:24AM (#1354133)
    Not to try to be a member of the glazed over club, but what is Chromatic abberation?

    Light is bent (refracted) as it passes through a lens. Different wavelengths of light are bent at different angles. Red bends more than blue. The earth's atmosphere acts as a lens. yellow/green/blue/violet light razing the earth during the eclipse are not refracted very much and do not strike the shadowed moon. Orange Red light is bent much more, enough to shine on the eclipsed moon. Hence the moon looks red. This has nothing to do with the content of the atmosphere so the redness is not caused by smog. Cromatic abberation is why telescopes with lenses (refractors) hav an upper limit to how sharply you can focus on an object. because the focal length is different for different colors. Reflector telescopes can form much sharper images because the angle of reflection off of a mirror does NOT change with wavelength.

  • And great opportunity for the spin doctors! (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, 2000 @10:24AM (#1354134)
    On CNN, they had some astronomy "expert" explain that the redness of the moon during totality was due to POLLUTANTS in the atmosphere! Puh-leeze. No mention of chromatic abberation. The publich will glaze over with that explanation, but smog? Yeah, they'll buy that! And it'll keep them in PH33R on environmental issues, like the "ozone hole" over Antarctica. Would you call a region of a wall that is a few percent less thick a "hole"? (Not to mention that we're drawing conclusions on global weather trends with a few decades worth of data. "experts" can't even explain the causes of the ice ages.) The scary part is that people will believe this and use it to bash more bad legislation onto all of us. Smog checks for mopeds? lawn mowers? leaf blowers? outboard boat engines? go-karts? Chain-saws? Don't laugh. California wants to do just this to pretty much *anything* with a gas engine in it.

  • A great digicam photo opportunity (Score:3)

    by kzinti ( 9651 ) on Thursday January 20, 2000 @09:58AM (#1354135) Homepage Journal
    Is anyone out there set up to do astrophotography with a tracking scope and a digital camera like the Kodak DC-2xx series? With a big enough memory card (a 64MB CF would do) you could take full-res photos spaced about 2 minutes apart for the full duration of the eclipse, or 1 minute apart through totality. Would make a cool animation!

    --Jim

  • Lunar eclipses explained (Score:3)

    by EricWright ( 16803 ) on Thursday January 20, 2000 @11:02AM (#1354136) Journal
    Your position on Earth relative to the Equator has nothing to do with it. Set up this experiment... Take a flashlight (close to a point source of light, similar to the Sun), turn it on, set it on something (so you can move around without the flashlight) and use it to cast a shadow on the wall. Go to the wall and put a sticky note on the wall in the shadow. Now, no matter where you move in the room, the sticky note will not appear out of the shadow. The angle with which the beam of light impacts the intervening object (the one casting the shadow) does not change. Thus, the position of the shadow does not change. Obviously, unless the sticky note falls off the wall, its position does not change. The simple fact of moving yourself around the room doesn't do anything (other than maybe knock over a chair in the dark!).

    Similarly, your position with respect to the Equator will not change the fact that the entire moon will lie within Earth's shadow. That's what is required for a full lunar eclipse.

    People in Eastern Europe (different longitude) will not see the eclipse simply because the moon will have set for them already. Remember, if the eclipse starts at 10pm, with totality onset at 11pm, this is 3am and 4am GMT, respectively. Eastern European sites are at GMT + several hours. It will already be daytime, and since a full moon rises at sunset, and sets at sunrise, these people will miss out.

    I can agree with your assessment that there is only one moon, however.

    Eric

  • Re:Not to sound religiously fanatical... (Score:3)

    by seizer ( 16950 ) on Thursday January 20, 2000 @10:17AM (#1354137) Homepage
    Not to sound religiously aetheist....

    the bible (and indeed many/all religious texts) weave fact into fiction and back around again. Lunar eclipses aren't rare. Probably someone knew about blood red eclipses and thought it sounded pretty good thrown in in the religious sense.

    Read Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. That's my bible :-)

    --Remove SPAM from my address to mail me

  • Re:Not to sound religiously fanatical... (Score:3)

    by Darth Maul ( 19860 ) on Thursday January 20, 2000 @11:03AM (#1354138)
    >> Isn't there somewhere in Revelations ...

    Actually, it's the book of Revelation.
    Singular.

    "I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There
    was a great earthquake. The sun turned black
    like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon
    turned blood red" - Revelation 6:12

    "The sun will be turned to darkness and the
    moon to blood before the coming of the great
    and dreadful day of the Lord." - Joel 2:31

  • FYI -- Astronomical and Calendar Info (Score:3)

    by zorgon ( 66258 ) on Thursday January 20, 2000 @10:59AM (#1354139) Homepage Journal
    Tons of info on upcoming lunar eclipses, other celestial events, and complete sunrise/sunset calendars (not to mention navigational ephemeris data) are available at the way, way cool page of the Astronomical Applications Dept. [navy.mil] of the US Naval Observatory in Washington -- truly the home of the Time Lords.
    --

  • Re:Blood red? (Score:3)

    by mattorb ( 109142 ) on Thursday January 20, 2000 @10:35AM (#1354140)
    "blood red" is sometimes an overstatement, but the phenomenon can still be pretty cool. the primary mechanism responsible for the coloring is actually (basically) the following: short wavelengths of light (aka, blue light) are scattered more effectively than long wavelengths (aka, red light). this, for instance, is why the sky is blue; it's why dust causes far more extinction in the visible regime than in the radio, etc. so sunlight hitting the earth has much of the blue component of the light scattered out. the point is that in an eclipse, the main reason the moon isn't totally dark is that some light from the _earth_ (rather than directly from the sun) illuminates it -- this light is mostly red (since the blue has been scattered out), so the moon appears red.

    your bit about volcanic ash, though, is presumably partially correct -- within certain limits, presumably more dust means more scattering (and hence a stronger red color, since the red component isn't affected nearly as much).

  • It's my birthday. Coincidence? (Score:4)

    by CausticPuppy ( 82139 ) on Thursday January 20, 2000 @10:58AM (#1354141)
    Today is my birthday. Obviously, the moon is turning blood red to mark the dawn of a new era, the era in which I rise to rule mankind. Tonight is my night. Pray that you're on my good side...

  • Astrophotography guidelines (Score:4)

    by waldeaux ( 109942 ) <donahue@NoSpam.skepsis.com> on Thursday January 20, 2000 @10:20AM (#1354142)
    I'm not sure of how short of an exposure you'll want to use (a FANTASTIC book for helping with this is Barry Gordon's Astrophotograph y : Featuring the Fx System of Exposure Determination [amazon.com] which was how I got started, and even more importantly gave me really awesome photos on my first try!

    Sicne the Moon is in Gemini, you're in a good situation because you can take longer exposures without getting trails. For a 50mm shot, my guess is anything under 15-20 sec should give you no trails (using a narrower-angle lens will decrease this tremendously!), but even when eclipsed the Moon might be still bright enough that you'll be using very short exposures. (Unfortunately my copy of Gordon's book is at the office, and I"m not!). Of course if you're using a telescope with tracking, it's not as much of an issue. I've only done still tripod imaging (which is fun all by itself). But be forewarned, even though the Moon looks HUGE, with a 50 mm lens, the actual lunar disk will only have a diameter of about 3 mm on the film!

    Dickinson and Newton [amazon.com] recommend for 400 speed film (I recommend SLIDE film over print film!) at f/8, an exposure time of 1/250 s at partial phases (after ingress), to 1/4 s during ingress near totality, to 1 to 10 seconds once totality starts, up to 100s for the deepest parts of the eclipse (and probably if the Moon is at perigee). Of course for exposures that are VERY long, you'll need to track the Moon to offset sidereal motion. But at a declination of 20 degrees North, as I said you can probably get up to 15 seconds without too much distortion (for a 50 mm lens).

    Of course, in Boston, it's snowing.

    But the next lunar eclipse visible in North America is less than a year away (Jan. 9, 2001).

  • Remember your moon viewing goggles! (Score:5)

    by TheDullBlade ( 28998 ) on Thursday January 20, 2000 @10:10AM (#1354143)
    Despite the fact that a solar eclipse and a lunar eclipse are completely different things, and staring at the full moon would not normally cause damage, it is important to remember that staring at an eclipse can damage your eyes.

    More frighteningly, lunar eclipses emit deadly "lunar rays" which affect your brain and make you stupid enough to try to watch it through a welder's mask instead of binoculars.

Slashdot Top Deals

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Close