wikipedia is a good source of info if you don't want to just look at the thing

No..... Not really.

It was more red than black...

Well, thank you for the wikipedia referance. I too had never heard of this, and thankfully will refrain from actualy seeing the image after reading the wikipedia background. I must assume that the picture isn't photoshopeed.

O. M. G.

You looked, didn't you. Everybody looks. It's like the tickle on the back of your neck that won't go away, but you can't find the spider that you're sure is causing it. You keep at it and at it and at it ...

"Don't look, Marion!!"

I would like to suggest that nobody looks up "tubgirl" either. Worse than goatse.

I didn't realize that had a name.

Too late.

God I hate being a curious person sometimes.

My bad.....I figured anybody thats been on the net more than a couple months would have run across Goatse at some point. Didn't realize there were so many innocents abroad. :o

But, but, but.....I didn't post a link.

In this case, I will believe what I see on the internet and preserve my goatse-tubgirl virginity. Thanks guys.

I think tw is talking about illumination of the moon when it is in earths penumbra or during an eclipse when some to all of the light hitting the moon has been filtered thru the earth's atmosphere.

Correct. The moon would be completely dark. But sunlight passing through the earth's atmosphere is refracted. Lowest frequency light is bent most which is why the moon glows red. Intensity of that light measures atmosphere clarity. This intensity must be compensated for by adjustments in the moon's orbit (apogee and perigee, etc), variation in sun's intensity, how the light is measured, etc. These experiments have been ongoing for decades. I thought I had posted a description previously in The Cellar. Apparently not.

We've discussed it before.....also Earth's gravity bending light slightly.....but it was probably a while ago. May not have been in IOtD either. :)

Correct.
Not so. Although the redder frequencies of the visible portion of the spectrum of light are refracted more than the bluer frequencies, this has nothing to do with the percieved color of the moon in this example. The red of the moon and the blue of the sky are what they are for the same reason: scattering. The gasses that compose our atmosphere scatter light at different rates, and blue light is scattered about four times more than red light. Consequently, of all the light that manages to reach the observer standing on the surface of the earth, much more of the blue has been removed leaving a greater proportion of red, hence the reddish moon.

The "intensity of that light measures atmospheric clarity" but it is an extremely coarse measurement indeed, having precisely five stops on the scale. And while it is influenced by the current atmospheric conditions, including cloud cover, its intended purpose is to describe the brightness of the moon during and eclipse, not atmospheric clarity.

From the earlier post...
This sounds like nonsense. Do you care to explain it in more detail? :eyebrow:

no, actually, i didn't and after reading the description, i won't. but the visual i have leads me to think that right before he "posed" he said "HEY Y'ALL! WATCH THIS!"

Edit: damn you Wolf! :vomit:

Tell me where all this red 'scattered' light is at midnight? The moon is red because that is the red light refracted through the earth's atmosphere - the only source of light to illuminate the moon. Blue light does not bend sufficiently AND therefore does not illuminate the moon. The amount of red light that illuminates the moon is the amount of red light refracted through the earth's atmosphere.

My odometer is only good to a mile. So how do I measure the distance between two points to within a hundreth of a mile? It's called statistics. Take enough data to obtain an accurate reading. Other variables to this experiment are included when taking that data; only some I have listed. But these variables are taken into account when measurements over generations showed a decrease in the amount of light reaching the moon - through earth's atmosphere.

Your assumptions about clouds and crude measuring assume no knowledge of statistics and no use of instruments. These experiements (and others including a measurment of sun's intensity) have been ongoing for decades using calibrated instruments; meaning these 'course measurements' by science have resulted in accurate data.

Meanwhile the course measurements that Big V cited from Danjon Scale of Lunar Eclipse Brightness are how the laymen - without instruments - can ball park the same experiment. That citation also says BigV's own citation confirms that lunar eclipses measure the clarity of earth's atmosphere. The accusation of "This sounds like nonsense. Do you care to explain it in more detail?" is posted in direct contradiction to BigV's own citation. Care to explain why you did not read your own citation before posting?

I thank you for confirming what I had posted. The illumination of the moon by light refracted in earth's atmosphere is one method to measure clarity or contamination of earth's atmosphere. Big V confirms how the experiment is performed- and how laymen without instruments can do the same experiment.