A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

The moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 15th 16, 08:26 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,955
Default The moon

What is the sudden interest in the moon, its been going around the earth in
a not very circular manner fo many years now and I can recall a day in the
80s when it was supposed to be bigger. Being on a breakwater inthe canaries
at the time, the moon always looks bigger there as it rises over the see,
and cannot say anyone noticed any difference. Now this being Britain, not
may people saw it this time, however the distance yesterday and tomorrow
will not be noticable really, so why all the hype on the tv?
I did wonder why nobody had linked it to the New Zealand Earthquakes yet,
or maybe the election of the Trump.
:-)
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!


  #2  
Old November 15th 16, 08:47 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,172
Default The moon

I've been wondering the same myself, but I suppose it's because the
newspapers can't do normal; they can only do sensational. Some
ignorant reporter has read that the moon will be closer than it has
been since 1948 and assumed this will look dramatic, not having read
or understood any of the other numbers associated with it, and how
little difference there will be. I'm sure it's true that appropriate
measuring equipment can show a genuine increase in angular magnitude,
but I saw the moon last night and to me it just looked like the moon.

Rod.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:26:15 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

What is the sudden interest in the moon, its been going around the earth in
a not very circular manner fo many years now and I can recall a day in the
80s when it was supposed to be bigger. Being on a breakwater inthe canaries
at the time, the moon always looks bigger there as it rises over the see,
and cannot say anyone noticed any difference. Now this being Britain, not
may people saw it this time, however the distance yesterday and tomorrow
will not be noticable really, so why all the hype on the tv?
I did wonder why nobody had linked it to the New Zealand Earthquakes yet,
or maybe the election of the Trump.
:-)
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!

  #3  
Old November 15th 16, 09:17 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ian Jackson[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default The moon

In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:26:15 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:


I did wonder why nobody had linked it to the New Zealand Earthquakes yet,


The moon causes the tides, and puts considerable stress on the solid
stuff as well, so could trigger fracture and an earthquake in parts
already stressed close to their breaking points.

It's been discussed in the prestigious science journal 'Nature'
recently, here http://tinyurl.com/hwpkfl9

or maybe the election of the Trump.


Lunatics aren't called lunatics for no reason!

As I understand it, it's not that the moon is extraordinarily close to
the earth, but rather that, on certain rare occasions, its regular
'close pass' coincides exactly with it being a full moon - and this is
one of those occasions.
--
Ian
  #4  
Old November 15th 16, 09:45 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 949
Default The moon

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...

I've been wondering the same myself, but I suppose it's because the
newspapers can't do normal; they can only do sensational. Some
ignorant reporter has read that the moon will be closer than it has
been since 1948 and assumed this will look dramatic, not having read
or understood any of the other numbers associated with it, and how
little difference there will be. I'm sure it's true that appropriate
measuring equipment can show a genuine increase in angular magnitude,
but I saw the moon last night and to me it just looked like the moon.


That's the trouble with being honest, sensible, scientific, logical, realistic and
not easily fooled.

They're terrible burdens.

  #5  
Old November 15th 16, 10:51 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,172
Default The moon

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:08:48 +0100, Martin wrote:

I've been wondering the same myself, but I suppose it's because the
newspapers can't do normal; they can only do sensational. Some
ignorant reporter has read that the moon will be closer than it has
been since 1948 and assumed this will look dramatic, not having read
or understood any of the other numbers associated with it, and how
little difference there will be. I'm sure it's true that appropriate
measuring equipment can show a genuine increase in angular magnitude,
but I saw the moon last night and to me it just looked like the moon.


The increase is 14% greater than normal, whatever normal is.


They even got that wrong. It's not 14% greater than normal, it's 14%
greater than apogee, so I guess about 7% greater than the mean value
if that's what you mean by "normal".

But hey, it's journalism, a close relative of advertising, where
impressive numbers are more important than relevance, even if you've
no idea what they mean.

Rod.
  #6  
Old November 15th 16, 10:54 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Robin[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 469
Default The moon

On 15/11/2016 09:08, Martin wrote:

The increase is 14% greater than normal, whatever normal is.

That was sloppy reporting by some. The 14% is the difference between
the maximum and minimum apparent diameters at perigee and apogee.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  #7  
Old November 15th 16, 11:31 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Clive Page[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default The moon

On 15/11/2016 08:52, Chris Hogg wrote:

or maybe the election of the Trump.


Lunatics aren't called lunatics for no reason!


And the Brexit vote was only a couple of days after the June full moon.
I think that proves it.

--
Clive Page
  #9  
Old November 15th 16, 12:19 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,955
Default The moon

On the bbc the other night a program on weather on other planets got its
millibars mixed up with its bars.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:08:48 +0100, Martin wrote:

I've been wondering the same myself, but I suppose it's because the
newspapers can't do normal; they can only do sensational. Some
ignorant reporter has read that the moon will be closer than it has
been since 1948 and assumed this will look dramatic, not having read
or understood any of the other numbers associated with it, and how
little difference there will be. I'm sure it's true that appropriate
measuring equipment can show a genuine increase in angular magnitude,
but I saw the moon last night and to me it just looked like the moon.


The increase is 14% greater than normal, whatever normal is.


They even got that wrong. It's not 14% greater than normal, it's 14%
greater than apogee, so I guess about 7% greater than the mean value
if that's what you mean by "normal".

But hey, it's journalism, a close relative of advertising, where
impressive numbers are more important than relevance, even if you've
no idea what they mean.

Rod.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.