Slashdot Mirror
Total Lunar Eclipse
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. "
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.
This
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.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
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?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
Hot grits in the pants, naked, and petrified. What more could one ask for?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
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
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
;) (no, really, it is! or at least appears to be)
And, as you state, it *is* the same moon, it's just upside down
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. 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.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:
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.)
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, 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.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
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.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
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
Will in Seattle
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:
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
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.
.sig: Now legally binding!
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!)
.sig: Now legally binding!
I stand corrected.
Please ignore me for the rest of the day.
.sig: Now legally binding!
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.
.sig: Now legally binding!
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).
.sig: Now legally binding!
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.
.sig: Now legally binding!
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)
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 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 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, 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
>> 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
--- witty signature
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. of the US Naval Observatory in Washington -- truly the home of the Time Lords.
--
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
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).
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...
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
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 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).
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.