
Total lunar eclipse to meet 'supermoon' - m1k3r420
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34352504
======
dalke
Is there anyone besides me who deeply dislikes the term 'supermoon'?

It has no meaning other than near perigee, it's not like the difference in the
apparent moon size is all that noticeable, and we don't say that ISS is a
'superstation' or a satellite in a Molniya orbit is a 'supersatellite' when
near perigee.

~~~
furyofantares
Maybe not a useful term for science but what's wrong with a fun celebratory
event? The general population isn't interested enough to tolerate news stories
about every full moon but they aren't so uninterested as to want zero
coverage. If people want to be reminded to go out and look up every once in a
while and have a minor social event on the Internet where people are looking
at and sharing photos and articles with friends and strangers from all over
the world, supermoons and lunar eclipses happen at a frequency that's pretty
good for that, and why not have a fun name as well?

~~~
dalke
There's a quote attributed to Rutherford that “In science there is only
physics; everything else is stamp collecting.” (See
[http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26219.html](http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26219.html)
for a citation.)

When I was in school we had to learn the organs of the body, the parts of a
cell, and other seemingly arbitrary terms. This comes from an old tradition
where "science" was roughly equivalent to "knowing names."

I also grew up in an area where evolution was a contentious topic. The teacher
only covered it for one day. But it's _evolution_ which tied together the
individual fields of 'botany' and 'anatomy' and 'bacteriology' into 'biology.'
Evolution is what makes Rutherford's views wrong.

Words like "supermoon" and also "blue moon" fall into that category of
meaningless terms that sound scientific but are little more than numerology,
and not backed by any deeper meaning.

I have no problems getting together for a 'fun celebratory event'. I celebrate
on New Year's eve like many others. I've been at fun celebratory events for
meteor showers, and for other eclipses.

What I have problems with is justifying it with essentially an arbitrary and
meaningless definition. Why is a "supermoon" at the 90% size threshold? Why
not 95% Or 99%? By comparison, the New Year is also arbitrary, but not
meaningless, as the history of the calendar shows.

~~~
furyofantares
I don't understand your last comment. I agree that the New Year is arbitrary,
but years themselves are quite meaningful and useful. But I don't think the
New Year celebration has anything to do with celebrating the concept and
understanding of a year. We have added extra non-scientific meaning to it by
using it as cultural event of reflection on the past and planning for the
future. I think that's in the same category as choosing to look at the moon
together and feel a sense of awe.

~~~
dalke
I'll try again. I'm not concerned about the arbitrariness of the term
'supermoon'. I dislike the meaningless of it. A good term has meaning behind
it. The choice of the new year is arbitrary, and has changed over the
centuries. We can examine why there is a calendar system, and compare sun-
based to moon-based calendar systems. We can understand that the turnover
point of the Gregorian or Mayan calendar is arbitrary, and for the more recent
calendar systems we know some of the reasons for why they exist.

Similarly, there's an intrinsic difference between a 'nova' and a 'supernova'.

But if you look at 'supermoon', all you get is a number pulled out of a hat.

> I think that's in the same category as choosing to look at the moon together
> and feel a sense of awe.

Does the awe really come from someone telling you the moon is near perigee? Or
from other aspects?

It's a temporal coincidence that the perigee moon now is near the full moon.
In another decade, the perigee moon will be around the new moon. Will we be
having the same coverage of the topic then? I doubt it.

Perhaps an analogy might help. People choose to believe in a 'Saturn return'.
But 'Saturn return' for arbitrary reasons includes the time +/\- a couple of
Earth years around a full Saturn year. I can still express my dislike for the
term and concept even if you are in awe to know that you are one, or two, or
even three Saturn years old.

~~~
furyofantares
Thanks, I understand what you mean about the term itself not conveying
information now.

> Does the awe really come from someone telling you the moon is near perigee?
> Or from other aspects?

Oh, not from that information, no. It comes from going out and looking at the
moon, taking pictures, and looking at all the pictures that populate my
facebook feed.

------
jschwartzi
Does anyone have the full date for the UTC time table in the article? Without
the UTC date that table is basically useless.

~~~
z92
Wikipedia page has it...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2015_lunar_eclipse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2015_lunar_eclipse)

