«

In article <>,
Mxsmanic <> wrote:

> Val Hallah writes:
>
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...appear-in-sky-
> > on-Saturday.html
>
> Somewhat of a non-event. As the article itself points out, this happens all
> the time. And the difference in size isn't that great. Now, if the Sun
> happened to slide behind it at the same time, you'd have a solar eclipse with
> quite a long period of totality (although the most spectacular solar eclipses
> are those that are total but with a short period of totality).


Here is a photo of the relative size difference between the moon at it's
closest and furthest points:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/moondist.jpg

--
m-m
Photo Gallery:
http://www.mhmyers.com

On Fri, 4 May 2012 23:47:22 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah <>
wrote:
: On May 5, 8:10*am, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > M-M writes:
: > > Here is a photo of the relative size difference between the moon
: > > at its closest and furthest points:
: >
: > >http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/moondist.jpg
: >
: > About 12%, or four minutes of arc. Hard to see given that the entire
: > Moon is only 30 minutes of arc in diameter.
:
: The moon will look about 16 per cent bigger and 30 per cent brighter
: than other full moons this year, he added.

Very interesting. But it's been overcast here for a week, and tonight's
forecast, as of the last time I looked, predicts no change.

Bob

On May 4, 10:16*pm, M-M <nospam....@ny.more> wrote:
> In article <l9i8q7p87kjnm8fdjnmt724bj5njjcs...@4ax.com>,
>
> *Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Val Hallah writes:
>
> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...oon-to-appear-....
> > > on-Saturday.html
>
> > Somewhat of a non-event. As the article itself points out, this happensall
> > the time. And the difference in size isn't that great. Now, if the Sun
> > happened to slide behind it at the same time, you'd have a solar eclipse with
> > quite a long period of totality (although the most spectacular solar eclipses
> > are those that are total but with a short period of totality).
>
> Here is a photo of the relative size difference between the moon at it's
> closest and furthest points:
>
> http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/moondist.jpg

Big deal...I love the way the media hype this for the imbeciles who
know nothing about astronomy (or much else for that matter).

In article <>,
Mxsmanic <> wrote:

> M-M writes:
>
> > Here is a photo of the relative size difference between the moon at it's
> > closest and furthest points:
> >
> > http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/moondist.jpg
>
> About 12%, or four minutes of arc. Hard to see given that the entire Moon is
> only 30 minutes of arc in diameter.


Not only that, but the size difference in the photo is close to the two
extremes. Most full moons are somewhere in the middle so this one is
only slightly larger in appearance than usual.

--
m-m
Photo Gallery:
http://www.mhmyers.com

On 5/5/2012 5:31 PM, RichA wrote:
> On May 4, 10:16 pm, M-M<nospam....@ny.more> wrote:
>> In article<l9i8q7p87kjnm8fdjnmt724bj5njjcs...@4ax.com >,
>>
>> Mxsmanic<mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Val Hallah writes:
>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...oon-to-appear-...
>>>> on-Saturday.html
>>
>>> Somewhat of a non-event. As the article itself points out, this happens all
>>> the time. And the difference in size isn't that great. Now, if the Sun
>>> happened to slide behind it at the same time, you'd have a solar eclipse with
>>> quite a long period of totality (although the most spectacular solar eclipses
>>> are those that are total but with a short period of totality).
>>
>> Here is a photo of the relative size difference between the moon at it's
>> closest and furthest points:
>>
>> http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/moondist.jpg
>
> Big deal...I love the way the media hype this for the imbeciles who
> know nothing about astronomy (or much else for that matter).

I've never heard of anybody taking a shot of the supermoon inside HENRY'S

--
Peter