This picture has been doing the rounds. It has got, just possibly, more errors and inaccuracies in one place than the movie Prometheus.

The trouble begins with that picture. Like something out of "When Worlds Collide" isn't it? You, my dear, clever reader are far too intelligent to think that this is anything other than an illustration to make a point, but I've been looking around online and a lot of less scientifically literate people than you and I are actually believing that the Moon wil look that big in the night sky (we'll gloss over it being in front of the clouds!). 

Now, I first came across this picture on a science advocacy site, which annoys me a lot. Sites promoting the wonders of the natural world have a responsibility to ensure that the information they provide is as accurate as it can be, and not to deliberately distort information. The comments I've read are saying how magnificent it will be and that it is a once in a lifetime event. Some are even worried for the survival of the Earth. Yes, science advocates should be trying to enthuse people about science, but this is only setting people up to be disappointed, which will only work to put people off of science in the long run.

The event will indeed take place on the 23rd of June as the picture says, but to call it this year's largest and closest 'Supermoon' is misleading. To begin with, the term 'Supermoon' is not an astronomical term. It was coined by an astrologer back in 1979, and we all know the level of scientific rigour that goes into astrology! No, to describe a full moon occuring at the Moon's closest point in its orbit to Earth, which is what the term has come to mean, actual astronomers use the term 'perigee-syzygy of the Earth-Moon-Sun system', or a 'perigee full Moon' for short.
Interestingly the astrologer who coined the term defined it as, "describing a new or full moon which occurs with the Moon at or near (within 90% of) its closest approach to Earth in a given orbit". Man, I like those error bars! Plus or minus 90%! I think you begin to see the trouble inherent in dealing with astrologers. 

The Moon orbits the Earth every 27.3 days but, due to the Earth moving a fair distance in its own orbit around the Sun in that same time, therefore taking a little bit longer for everything to line up correctly again, the interval between full Moons takes 29.5 days. Successive perigees occur at intervals of about 27.6 days. The time taken to go through 14 full moons is almost equal to the time between 15 perigees, or about 413 days. So, there is about one year, one month and 18 days between successive supermoons. The last one of these occurred on the 6th of May 2012, and the subsequent one will be on the 10th of August 2014. So while it is, indeed, the "largest and closest "super Moon"" of this year, it is also the smallest and most distant. It is the only 'Supermoon' of 2013.

Since the next one will be 413 days later the fact that it is the "Moon's closest encounter with Earth in a long time" only really works if you consider 413 days to be a long time. The previous one in 2012 was 36 km closer and the next one will be 5 km closer. The one in 2016 will be 482 km closer!

So, what will it be like, if not like a giant doomsday world hanging over our heads? Well it will appear slightly bigger. Here's an example of what I mean:

The supermoon of March 19, 2011,compared to an average moon of December 20, 2010. Image Credit: Marco Langbroek, the Netherlands, via Wikimedia Commons.
That is a difference in size of maybe 14%. With nothing up in the sky for scale, chances are you won't be able to distinguish that difference with the naked eye. It will possibly seem brighter, up to 30%, but again, unless you are very familiar with how bright the full Moon usually is you will have nothing to compare it to. And it might well be cloudy.
Tides may be a bit more extreme, but probably on the order of inches or so. Strong onshore winds might make a difference to a higher than usual tide.

So, have I rained on your parade by setting the record straight? Possibly, but I have spared you the crushing disappointment of a 'Supermoon' that would undoubtedly fail to deliver. But I might also have got you slightly intrigued in the orbits of the Earth-Moon-Sun system and the odd cycles that crop up as a result of their ongoing 4,500,000,000 year dance. It's a payoff worth taking a risk over.

Who wants to be freaked out?

Link to Youtube video of the Petman robot

Seriously creepy.

If you're going to build a freaking humanoid robot and set it marching then a) don't stick a gimp-mask on the bugger, b) get him to bend over, look at you, and fart and then c) do some tai chi!

Thatcher, and free speech on social networking sites

Okay, seriously. What the fuck are you doing here. This post is one that is almost certainly guaranteed to cause offense to people. Go away now, or learn how to STFU.









Still here?









You sure about this?










The death of Margaret Thatcher yesterday was, for me, a delight. I said as much on Facebook. While the overwhelming majority of my fellow Facebookians agreed with me, there were about 4 who strongly disagreed with my reaction. Apparently it was callous and disrespectful of me to think the way I did and to dare to mention it in public.

I found all this very odd. Not the opposing views I hasten to add - I remember how much she polarised opinion back in the day and expected no less yesterday. I knew there would be many who disagreed with me. Fine. The thing that shocked me was how, all of a sudden, people who, to my mind should have known better, were actually trying to force me to think and feel the way that they did. I wasn't forcing them to think or act in a particular way, so why were they doing so to me?

One person said, "Have some respect". I didn't follow this at all. Was I supposed to alter my opinion of the deceased, held for 30 years or more, because I was told to? I don't respect Thatcher, I never have (sure she was the first woman Prime Minister, which was an achievement, but that has more to do with her being a woman, not her as an individual, her personality or politics. To respect an achievement simply because it was achieved by a woman is surely as sexist as patting her on the head and saying 'well done'. Whichever woman became the first would have achieved the same thing).
Maybe I was supposed to pretend to have respect that I didn't actually have, just in order to allow those that did respect to slip serenely through the day without being exposed to contradictory viewpoints? It struck me as not dissimilar to the cowardice inherent in Pascal's Wager. Are dishonest lies preferable to honestly held views?

One person seemed to suggest that the family would be offended! Well, tough. There is a miniscule chance that they read my post, and if they did, they can damn well be reminded that their family member was not universally adored. I refer people to this piece in The Guardian - margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette

Some thought that Facebook was not the place for such views to be aired. But it is Facebook, not The Times or The Washington Post. The media have rules that they have to work to (although as we have seen with Leveson, they often don't). We are talking about a silly little social networking site. Not only that, but my Facebook wall. Not your wall. Mine. Who the hell do people think they are telling me what I can put on my Facebook wall? Why those few people think that they have a right to do that is beyond me. I am fairly sure they wouldn't want me jumping out from behind their sofa and telling them that that song recommendation or picture of a dog surfing can't be posted on their wall as it offends me. I am reminded of Stephen Fry's famous quote about offence.

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.'
As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more than a whine.
'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.
'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

And also the piece by Steve Hughes, stand-up comedian.

Political correction is the oppression of our intellectual movement
so no one says anything anymore just in case anyone else get’s offended.
What happens if you say that and someone gets offended?
Well they can be offended, can’t they? What’s wrong with being offended?
When did stick and stones may break my bones stop being relevant? Isn’t that what you teach children?
"He called me an idiot!" Don’t worry about it, he’s a dick.
Now you have adults going "I was offended, I was offended and I have rights!"
Well so what, be offended, nothing happened. You’re an adult, grow up, and deal with it.
"I was offended!" Well, I don’t care! Nothing happens when you’re offended.
"I went to the comedy show and the comedian said something about the lord, and I was offended,
and when I woke up in the morning, I had leprosy."
Nothing Happens! "I want to live in a democracy but I never want to be offended again."
Well you’re an idiot. How do you make a law about offending people? How do you make it an offense to offend people?
Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual or a collective,
or a group or a society or a community. Your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs.
What offends me may not offend you. And you want to make laws about this?
I’m offended when I see boy bands for god sake. It’s a valid offense, I’m offended.
They’re cooperate shills, posing as musicians to further a modeling career and frankly I’m disgusted.

Both of them make the valid point that offence is subjective. It is you that is having the problem, not me. Deal with it. It's Facebook. You don't have to read my posts, you can ignore them with as much gusto as I ignore yours. More if you want. It's Mary bloody Whitehouse all over again. If you don't like the programme you're watching, switch over/off! If it really bothers you you can defriend me. The internet is a scary place, people. It's not all cats with funny captions, there are people out there who may hold views that are different to yours. If you are both neuro-typical and old enough to be on Facebook you should really have developed a theory of mind by now.

Oddly I didn't hear any of these critics having a go at all the posts praising her or the fawning media coverage. Why weren't the condemning that as well? Probably because that coincided with their viewpoint. Well, unfortunately free speech is a two edged sword. If you want it for yourself, you have to allow it to everyone, even those who disagree with you.

One critic claimed that to attack a sick, now dead old woman was cruel, neatly forgetting that it was the same woman, seeming to believe that she was now a complletely different individual to the one who, it is my opinion, ruined this country back in the 80s. Alzheimer's is cruel, I know. My mother passed away from the disease. But as I don't believe in an afterlife, I don't subscribe to the notion that there is punishment waiting for us after we die. The only punishment we can be awarded is in this life.

I shall end by saying that you are entitled to your views and opinions and I am entitled to mine. If you disagree with anything that I have said you are entitled to do so, but you are not entitled to censor me. You are also rather unlikely to change my mind.