Beginning of a Lunar Eclipse

Messages
8
Name
Joshua Lovatt
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone. I was digging through my photos of the Moon the other day and I came across a shot of the Lunar Eclipse that occurred in 2015. Sadly I lost the few pictures I took of the Blood-Red Moon, but this looks pretty cool nonetheless.

18485539_1917898851766421_4414214178242627592_n.jpg
 



Very sorry Joshua…

but this can't possibly be the beginning
of a lunar eclipse or anything close!

Nor could it be one of the Sun!

Your picture has its charms though too
small for viewing pleasure.
 
An explanation as to why it "can't possibly be" would be helpful.
 
as ever, I see


I prefer, this I am sure you will understand, not contribute
to your "ass kicking superhero by night" skills sharpening
and keep my distance.

I gave you a direction to pursue your quest for knowledge
in an English that you can understand. That was the most
useful I can be in your case.
 
I prefer, this I am sure you will understand, not contribute
to your "ass kicking superhero by night" skills sharpening
and keep my distance.

I gave you a direction to pursue your quest for knowledge
in an English that you can understand. That was the most
useful I can be in your case.

Actually, you called into question the validity of someone's image, without bothering to explain why, which is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
I fancy you think yourself something of an expert in the subject, yet can't back up your comment.
Somehow, I'm not shocked.
 
Perhaps an explanation upon your opening comment might have been useful, instead of the rather insulting one you opted for.
 
Well done Joshua, a nice shot of the umbral phase of the eclipse, not sure what your critic thinks it is :) Must be a "new age" astronomer, I'm just an old fashioned one! :)
 
Well done Joshua, a nice shot of the umbral phase of the eclipse, not sure what your critic thinks it is :) Must be a "new age" astronomer, I'm just an old fashioned one! :)
Unfortunately the op hasn't been seen since a couple of hours after the negative comment.
Calling someone, let alone a new member, a liar, isn't really the way to get the best from people or encourage new members to post :(
 
Calling someone, let alone a new member, a liar, isn't really the way to get the best from people or encourage new members to post :(
In Science, wrong data is not a lie, it is wrong data.
I never suggested this was a lie but either wrong data
or bad definition. Wrong data, when seen, is a positive
outcome since it is out of the scope.

Very sorry Joshua…
but this can't possibly be the beginning
of a lunar eclipse or anything close!
Nor could it be one of the Sun!


Your picture has its charms though too small for viewing
pleasure.
This says wrong data… and not that this is a lie!
The OP may honestly have held for true either wrong
data or has a bad definition of the eclipse mechanics.

I still have some possibly severe problems in English
but not in the field of my major!
 
Last edited:
You have to get used to people misinterpreting posts here Daniel, very quick to jump to wrong conclusions.
More to the point when there is several RTM's & PM's about an established member berating an new member, someone will always act (y)
 
I'm sorry, but I think I must be a bit slow today. In what way is that video relevant? How does it prove that the initial photo could not possibly have been from an eclipse?

It doesn't.
 
Looks like part of a lunar eclipse to me. (Astrophysics graduate)
As a single image, it did not to me because the quality of the
document does not reflect the relative hardness, harshness
of the penumbra and umbra shadow delimitation even counting
in the atmospheric light scattering effect on them.
n what way is that video relevant? How does it prove that the initial photo could not possibly have been from an eclipse?
Within the video, I can understand better that the production
quality could not reflect these features.


Thank you both for the tone and pertinence of your replies.
 
As a single image, it did not to me because the quality of the document does not reflect the relative hardness, harshness of the penumbra and umbra shadow delimitation even counting in the atmospheric light scattering effect on them.
Aha! Take a look at this instead:
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/lunar/2015-september-28

You'll see that there is a simulation of what the eclipse looks like at different stages. Run it forward until the magnitude of the eclipse is about 0.30, and then pause it and inspect. You will see that the moon is gradually dimmed ahead of the advancing umbra, and the distinction between the penumbra and the umbra is not as clear as you would expect.

(I don't know why that is.)
 
Aha! Take a look at this instead:
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/lunar/2015-september-28

You'll see that there is a simulation of what the eclipse looks like at different stages. Run it forward until the magnitude of the eclipse is about 0.30, and then pause it and inspect. You will see that the moon is gradually dimmed ahead of the advancing umbra, and the distinction between the penumbra and the umbra is not as clear as you would expect.

(I don't know why that is.)
Rayleigh scattering caused by the atmosphere. Also causes the red colouring because red light is scattered through small angles ie in the forward direction whereas blue light is scattered through large angles (this is why the sky is blue). Amount of scattering depends on the amount of dust in the atmosphere. This scattering blurs the shadow edges.
 
Rayleigh scattering caused by the atmosphere. Also causes the red colouring because red light is scattered through small angles ie in the forward direction whereas blue light is scattered through large angles (this is why the sky is blue). Amount of scattering depends on the amount of dust in the atmosphere. This scattering blurs the shadow edges.
Thanks for the explanation!
 
Back
Top