Here's an old post for you.

BillyMac

26 Year Gap wrote
With the full moon & lunar eclipse.

BillyMac wrote
Redundant. Lunar eclipse will suffice.

26 Year Gap wrote
No, they're not.

BillyMac wrote
All lunar eclipses occur during a full moon. Every single one of them. No such thing as a crescent, gibbous, first quarter, last quarter, or new moon, lunar eclipse.

Snaqwells wrote
Rule reference?

My B.S and M.S. in Earth Science. Twenty years of teaching high school Earth Science.

26 Year Gap wrote
However, a full moon can occur without a lunar eclipse.

Correct. It happens quite often. Ten to thirteen times a year, usually eleven per year.

26 Year Gap wrote
And there was a full moon before and after the event.

As well as during the event. The moon was still in its full phase during the entire eclipse.

Camron Rust wrote
Of course, just like a solar eclipse can only happen during a new moon.

Correct.

OK. Maybe redundant was the wrong word. "With the full moon & lunar eclipse" is kind of like saying, "I've got a five cent nickel (referring to 21st century American coins). I'm sure that mbyron will be along shortly to tell us what was wrong, if anything, with the statement, "With the full moon & lunar eclipse".

BillyMac

bob jenkins wrote
It's possible that under a very strict definition, a "full moon" lasts only an instant. The moon would be a waxing gibbous the instant earlier and a waning gibbous an instant after.

Yes. However a specific phase, like full, first quarter, last quarter, or new, is often considered to last one day. Cool reference to waxing gibbous, and waning gibbous. I wish more people were as scientifically literate.

26 Year Gap wrote
But it is also factual that a lunar eclipse is a subset of the full moon.

Sounds good.

bob jenkins

26 Year Gap wrote
But it is also factual that a lunar eclipse is a subset of the full moon.

Right. And Billy said that "full moon and lunar eclipse" was redundant. He meant "wordy." Just saying "lunar eclipse" would be sufficient.

mbyron

26 Year Gap wrote
But it is also factual that a lunar eclipse is a subset of the full moon.

No it's not. Neither a lunar eclipse nor a full moon is a set, so neither can be a subset of the other. 😛

Perhaps you mean that the set of lunar eclipses is a proper subset of the set of full moons? It makes more sense to say this without set theory, IMO.

I think I'm going to have a great game tonight. This thread is making me a better official. 😀

BillyMac

mbyron wrote
I think I'm going to have a great game tonight. This thread is making me a better official.

Didn't you want to type your post in a blue font?

Jurassic Referee

BillyMac wrote
Didn't you want to type your post in a blue font?

Not unless he wants to be spatchcocked too.....:eek:

BillyMac

Jurassic Referee wrote
Not unless he wants to be spatchcocked too.

I would have never, in a million years, guessed that this would have turned into a cooking forum. Never. I would have bet my house on it.

26 Year Gap

BillyMac wrote
Didn't you want to type your post in a blue font?

I just hope he doesn't end up mooning the crowd, which would eclipse all of his prior embarrassments in life.

BillyMac

26 Year Gap wrote
I just hope he doesn't end up mooning the crowd, which would eclipse all of his prior embarrassments in life.

We have pictures of you so-called "mooners!" And just because the pictures aren't of your faces doesn't mean we can't identify you! At this very moment, those pictures are on their way to Washington, where the FBI has experts in this type of identification. If you turn yourselves in now, you may escape a federal charge!

mbyron: Thanks. It works.

« Previous Page