| |
Main
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:01:30
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
(in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
When the whole earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
call the lunar phase: "full".
Is it any wonder that so many children in the U.S. have difficulty
understanding science and fractions (math)?
Of course, there are reasons for the names we use; but I don't believe
there are any "good" reasons for the mutually contradictory terms used
for the above mentioned lunar phases.
It's enough to make one wonder if some organization (comparable to the
IAU) long, long ago felt there was no choice but to accept a
compromise between two lunar phase nomenclature systems. After all,
the current system has all appearances of having been adopted by a
group of lunatics!
Does this discrepancy exist in other countries?
Would the IAU be willing to draft and adopt a more rational,
scientific, lunar phase nomenclature?
Wouldn't it be nice if two halves equaled one whole (or two quarters
equaled one half) in astronomy just as it does in mathematics?
Willie R. Meghar
Observational Notes at:
http://meghar.blogspot.com/
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 09:35:08
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
Willie R. Meghar wrote:
> When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
> (in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
>
> When the whole earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
> call the lunar phase: "full".
>
> Is it any wonder that so many children in the U.S. have difficulty
> understanding science and fractions (math)?
I think you're mistaking cause and effect. Many kids I've met who are
learning fractions aren't even aware of the terms "first quarter" and
"last quarter." Those who are aware of them generally haven't a problem
at all with fractions.
I'm not crazy about the workbooks they use nowadays. I think that has
more to do with kids and fractions than lunar phase nomenclature does.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:49:37
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
>Willie R. Meghar wrote:
>> When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>> (in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
>>
>> When the whole earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>> call the lunar phase: "full".
>>
>> Is it any wonder that so many children in the U.S. have difficulty
>> understanding science and fractions (math)?
>
>I think you're mistaking cause and effect. Many kids I've met who are
>learning fractions aren't even aware of the terms "first quarter" and
>"last quarter." Those who are aware of them generally haven't a problem
>at all with fractions.
The intent was not for 'the' cause, nor even for a primary cause; but
instead was for a single, minor factor somewhat like one of the many
strands of straw that contributed to breaking the camel's back.
The accepted terminology leaves much room for confusion. Consider the
following quote found on page 113 of the fourth edition of "Astronomy:
from the Earth to the Universe" by Jay M. Pasachoff:
"(Instead of apologizing for the fact that astronomers call the same
phase both "quarter" and "half," I'll just continue with a straight
face and try to pretend that there is nothing strange about it.)"
Willie R. Meghar
Observational Notes at:
http://meghar.blogspot.com/
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:26:29
From: Bob Schmall
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
Willie R. Meghar wrote:
>
> Would the IAU be willing to draft and adopt a more rational,
> scientific, lunar phase nomenclature?
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if two halves equaled one whole (or two quarters
> equaled one half) in astronomy just as it does in mathematics?
>
> Willie R. Meghar
> Observational Notes at:
> http://meghar.blogspot.com/
Why not ask the IAU rather than an amateur astronomy newsgroup which has
no authority?
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 14:32:54
From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
In article <m8uak2dl0ijnlreeksrb47vju0h64q03c7@4ax.com >,
Willie R. Meghar <NoMail@thisaddress.net > wrote:
>When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>(in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
We do also call it a half moon, at least in Britain.
The terms "first quarter" and "last quarter" refer to the quarters of
the lunar month rather than the illuminated portion of the moon.
>Would the IAU be willing to draft and adopt a more rational,
>scientific, lunar phase nomenclature?
Please, no. If people find it confusing they can refer to "half moons"
without any need for authorisation.
-- Richard
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:49:31
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
(Richard Tobin) wrote:
>Willie R. Meghar <NoMail@thisaddress.net> wrote:
>>When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>>(in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
>
>We do also call it a half moon, at least in Britain.
Hoo-rah! for the British! In the U.S. the term "quarter" is used most
often.
Do the British differentiate between a "first half" and a "second
half?"
>The terms "first quarter" and "last quarter" refer to the quarters of
>the lunar month rather than the illuminated portion of the moon.
That may be the situation in Britain; but in the U.S. those terms are
often used to name specific phases.
Willie R. Meghar
Observational Notes at:
http://meghar.blogspot.com/
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 05:05:22
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
On Sun, 29 2006 21:01:30 -0700, Willie R. Meghar
<NoMail@thisaddress.net > wrote:
>When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>(in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
We may say "first quarter", but we don't say "quarter moon". Note that
this is the ordinal "first", not "one quarter".
>When the whole earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>call the lunar phase: "full".
We say "second quarter", or we say "full".
>Is it any wonder that so many children in the U.S. have difficulty
>understanding science and fractions (math)?
>
>Of course, there are reasons for the names we use; but I don't believe
>there are any "good" reasons for the mutually contradictory terms used
>for the above mentioned lunar phases.
What contradiction? You are talking about two different things. When
discussing phases, well educated people often refer to first quarter
(half moon waxing), second quarter (full moon), third quarter (half
moon waning), and fourth quarter (new moon). I don't know anybody,
educated or otherwise, who calls the half-illuminated moon a "quarter
moon".
>It's enough to make one wonder if some organization (comparable to the
>IAU) long, long ago felt there was no choice but to accept a
>compromise between two lunar phase nomenclature systems. After all,
>the current system has all appearances of having been adopted by a
>group of lunatics!
Lunar phases are completely rational: they are expressed as a
percentage from 0% to 100%, and naturally the quarters tend to be
called 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.
Common names are also rational, although they follow a different
system: new, half, and full.
I don't think this is confusing school kids, or damaging their math
skills.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:49:50
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
>On Sun, 29 2006 21:01:30 -0700, Willie R. Meghar
><NoMail@thisaddress.net> wrote:
>
>>When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>>(in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
>
>We may say "first quarter", but we don't say "quarter moon". Note that
>this is the ordinal "first", not "one quarter".
I'll also note that I've only heard mention of the first, the third,
and the last quarters. Furthermore, third quarter is the same phase
as last quarter.
>>When the whole earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>>call the lunar phase: "full".
>
>We say "second quarter", or we say "full".
That's odd. I've never before heard the term "second quarter" used
for "full".
>>Is it any wonder that so many children in the U.S. have difficulty
>>understanding science and fractions (math)?
>>
>>Of course, there are reasons for the names we use; but I don't believe
>>there are any "good" reasons for the mutually contradictory terms used
>>for the above mentioned lunar phases.
>
>What contradiction? You are talking about two different things. When
>discussing phases, well educated people often refer to first quarter
>(half moon waxing), second quarter (full moon), third quarter (half
>moon waning), and fourth quarter (new moon). I don't know anybody,
>educated or otherwise, who calls the half-illuminated moon a "quarter
>moon".
Intuitively, when we look at a "full" moon we're looking a "whole"
moon; but when we look at a phase where half as much of the
earth-facing moon is illuminated we call it a quarter. This sounds a
bit contradictory to me.
It's also seems contradictory when "half" and "quarter" are used for
the same phase. (See the quote I provided in my reply to Brian's
posting.)
>>It's enough to make one wonder if some organization (comparable to the
>>IAU) long, long ago felt there was no choice but to accept a
>>compromise between two lunar phase nomenclature systems. After all,
>>the current system has all appearances of having been adopted by a
>>group of lunatics!
>
>Lunar phases are completely rational: they are expressed as a
>percentage from 0% to 100%, and naturally the quarters tend to be
>called 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.
Clearly there are too many different systems for expressing lunar
phases!
The problem is that the commonly accepted (and taught) system in the
U.S. consists of components from more than one system.
>Common names are also rational, although they follow a different
>system: new, half, and full.
The system commonly taught in the U.S. is partially from one system
and partially from another. Typically we have: New, Waxing crescent,
First quarter, Waxing gibbous, Full, Waning gibbous, Third quarter and
Waning crescent.
>I don't think this is confusing school kids, or damaging their math
>skills.
The effects would be different on different individuals.
Willie R. Meghar
Observational Notes at:
http://meghar.blogspot.com/
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 08:42:39
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
In article <ra6gk2d4rp8rl6dfcikr8rb6ppm0bjuksd@4ax.com >,
Willie R. Meghar <NoMail@thisaddress.net > wrote:
> Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 2006 21:01:30 -0700, Willie R. Meghar
>><NoMail@thisaddress.net> wrote:
>>
>>>When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>>>(in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
>>
>>We may say "first quarter", but we don't say "quarter moon". Note that
>>this is the ordinal "first", not "one quarter".
>
> I'll also note that I've only heard mention of the first, the third,
> and the last quarters. Furthermore, third quarter is the same phase
> as last quarter.
>
>>>When the whole earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>>>call the lunar phase: "full".
>>
>>We say "second quarter", or we say "full".
>
> That's odd. I've never before heard the term "second quarter" used
> for "full".
You're probably right! To quote from:
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/arc/sk032902.html
# Full Moon could just as well be called the "second quarter," though
# the term is never used.
I googled around for "second quarter" a bit, and it seems like there's
a confusion about the usage of "second quarter": logically it ought to
mean the full moon (between the first quarter and the third quarter
moon), but some people use "second quarter" to mean "waning half" i.e.
the third quarter moon!
http://www.eduplace.com/activity/pdf/moon_phases.pdf
One could perhaps avoid this confusion by calling the waning half moon
the "last quarter" moon instead -- but that's not correct either,
since there also is a "fourth quarter" moon: the new moon. But just
like "second quarter" is almost never used to mean full moon, "fourth
quarter" is almost never used to mean new moon.
>>>Is it any wonder that so many children in the U.S. have difficulty
>>>understanding science and fractions (math)?
>>>
>>>Of course, there are reasons for the names we use; but I don't believe
>>>there are any "good" reasons for the mutually contradictory terms used
>>>for the above mentioned lunar phases.
>>
>>What contradiction? You are talking about two different things. When
>>discussing phases, well educated people often refer to first quarter
>>(half moon waxing), second quarter (full moon), third quarter (half
>>moon waning), and fourth quarter (new moon). I don't know anybody,
>>educated or otherwise, who calls the half-illuminated moon a "quarter
>>moon".
>
> Intuitively, when we look at a "full" moon we're looking a "whole"
> moon; but when we look at a phase where half as much of the
> earth-facing moon is illuminated we call it a quarter. This sounds a
> bit contradictory to me.
>
> It's also seems contradictory when "half" and "quarter" are used for
> the same phase. (See the quote I provided in my reply to Brian's
> posting.)
This confusion arises for a mixed use of two different terminologies.
The "quarters" are not quarters of visible lunar phase, they are
quarters of the Moon's synodic orbit.
>>>It's enough to make one wonder if some organization (comparable to the
>>>IAU) long, long ago felt there was no choice but to accept a
>>>compromise between two lunar phase nomenclature systems. After all,
>>>the current system has all appearances of having been adopted by a
>>>group of lunatics!
>>
>>Lunar phases are completely rational: they are expressed as a
>>percentage from 0% to 100%, and naturally the quarters tend to be
>>called 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.
>
> Clearly there are too many different systems for expressing lunar
> phases!
>
> The problem is that the commonly accepted (and taught) system in the
> U.S. consists of components from more than one system.
>
>>Common names are also rational, although they follow a different
>>system: new, half, and full.
>
> The system commonly taught in the U.S. is partially from one system
> and partially from another. Typically we have: New, Waxing crescent,
> First quarter, Waxing gibbous, Full, Waning gibbous, Third quarter and
> Waning crescent.
...and to further add to the confusion, some people call the third quarter
moon the "second quarter moon" .....
>>I don't think this is confusing school kids, or damaging their math
>>skills.
>
> The effects would be different on different individuals.
>
> Willie R. Meghar
> Observational Notes at:
> http://meghar.blogspot.com/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 12:18:30
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:42:39 GMT, pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
wrote:
>You're probably right! To quote from:
>http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/arc/sk032902.html
>
># Full Moon could just as well be called the "second quarter," though
># the term is never used.
Odd. Most astronomers I know commonly use "second quarter" when
referring to the full moon. Usually the term is used when the context
is otherwise about phases- e.g. comparing how the illumination varies
between first and second quarter. "Full moon" is almost always used in
other contexts- e.g. scheduling star parties around full moons.
Similarly for new moons. In contrast, I know almost no astronomers who
regularly use "half moon". First and third quarter is much more
common.
Any confusion among the lay public is likely due to the way the names
and phases seem at odds. But the system we use is quite logical, even
if 50% phase corresponds to "full moon". IMO, the problem isn't with
the nomenclature, but with poor science education. Once somebody
actually understands why we have lunar phases, they shouldn't have a
problem with the terminology. Unfortunately, I rarely encounter
non-astronomers who understand this at all (in spite of the fact that
it's theoretically taught to everyone).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 23:54:58
From: OG
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
"Willie R. Meghar" <NoMail@thisaddress.net > wrote in message
news:m8uak2dl0ijnlreeksrb47vju0h64q03c7@4ax.com...
> When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
> (in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
>
When my son was about 4 years old he described it as the 'apple moon' .
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:49:43
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk > wrote:
>
>"Willie R. Meghar" <NoMail@thisaddress.net> wrote in message
>news:m8uak2dl0ijnlreeksrb47vju0h64q03c7@4ax.com...
>> When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>> (in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
>>
>
>When my son was about 4 years old he described it as the 'apple moon' .
Dare I relate how my son, at a young age, pronounced "Venus?" :-)
Willie R. Meghar
Observational Notes at:
http://meghar.blogspot.com/
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 13:04:48
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
a couple of months ago, I saw a 5/4 moon! but it got cloudy before I could
take a picture. How's that for math edumacation? :-)
"Willie R. Meghar" <NoMail@thisaddress.net > wrote in message
news:m8uak2dl0ijnlreeksrb47vju0h64q03c7@4ax.com...
> When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
> (in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
>
> When the whole earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
> call the lunar phase: "full".
>
> Is it any wonder that so many children in the U.S. have difficulty
> understanding science and fractions (math)?
>
> Of course, there are reasons for the names we use; but I don't believe
> there are any "good" reasons for the mutually contradictory terms used
> for the above mentioned lunar phases.
>
> It's enough to make one wonder if some organization (comparable to the
> IAU) long, long ago felt there was no choice but to accept a
> compromise between two lunar phase nomenclature systems. After all,
> the current system has all appearances of having been adopted by a
> group of lunatics!
>
> Does this discrepancy exist in other countries?
>
> Would the IAU be willing to draft and adopt a more rational,
> scientific, lunar phase nomenclature?
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if two halves equaled one whole (or two quarters
> equaled one half) in astronomy just as it does in mathematics?
>
> Willie R. Meghar
> Observational Notes at:
> http://meghar.blogspot.com/
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 15:14:08
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
In article <OqOdnXKrRul61NrYnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@bt.com >,
Tom <tom_wade1996@nospam.yahoo.com > wrote:
>a couple of months ago, I saw a 5/4 moon! but it got cloudy before I could
>take a picture. How's that for math edumacation? :-)
>
>
>
>"Willie R. Meghar" <NoMail@thisaddress.net> wrote in message
>news:m8uak2dl0ijnlreeksrb47vju0h64q03c7@4ax.com...
>> When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>> (in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
>>
>> When the whole earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>> call the lunar phase: "full".
>>
>> Is it any wonder that so many children in the U.S. have difficulty
>> understanding science and fractions (math)?
>>
>> Of course, there are reasons for the names we use; but I don't believe
>> there are any "good" reasons for the mutually contradictory terms used
>> for the above mentioned lunar phases.
If you want to be consistent, use a consistent set of terms:
Half, waxing = first quarter
Full = second quarter
Half, waning = third quarter
New = fourth quarter
The inconsistency is due to picing the terms from one column each
other phase, and the other columns each other phase
And the reason one say "first quarter" and "third quarter" is to
distinguish the waxing half from the waning half phase.
But if you want to be consistent, say either:
half, full, half, new
or:
first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, fourth quarter
but don't mix the two sets of terms.
>> It's enough to make one wonder if some organization (comparable to the
>> IAU) long, long ago felt there was no choice but to accept a
>> compromise between two lunar phase nomenclature systems. After all,
>> the current system has all appearances of having been adopted by a
>> group of lunatics!
>>
>> Does this discrepancy exist in other countries?
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Would the IAU be willing to draft and adopt a more rational,
>> scientific, lunar phase nomenclature?
Why don't you ask the IAU instead of us? This is not the IAU, this
is sci.astro.amateur. But I doubt they'd be willing to do this - they
probably don't want to get even more ridicule, after the show about
the definition of the word "planet"....
Btw, this is a question about nomenclature, not about science....
>> Wouldn't it be nice if two halves equaled one whole (or two quarters
>> equaled one half) in astronomy just as it does in mathematics?
Well, now YOU must educate yourself! The "quarter" doesn't refer to
a quarter of the full lunar phase, but instead of a quarter of the
moon's (synodic) orbit! And indeed, four quarters does equal one
full revolution.....
>> Willie R. Meghar
>> Observational Notes at:
>> http://meghar.blogspot.com/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:49:55
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>If you want to be consistent, use a consistent set of terms:
>
>Half, waxing = first quarter
>Full = second quarter
>Half, waning = third quarter
>New = fourth quarter
>
>The inconsistency is due to picing the terms from one column each
>other phase, and the other columns each other phase
>
>And the reason one say "first quarter" and "third quarter" is to
>distinguish the waxing half from the waning half phase.
>
>But if you want to be consistent, say either:
>
> half, full, half, new
>
>or:
>
> first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, fourth quarter
>
>but don't mix the two sets of terms.
Unfortunately, for U.S. readers, traditional lunar phase nomenclature
comes from just such a mixture of sets.
>Well, now YOU must educate yourself! The "quarter" doesn't refer to
>a quarter of the full lunar phase, but instead of a quarter of the
>moon's (synodic) orbit! And indeed, four quarters does equal one
>full revolution.....
Ah! But in the U.S., when lunar phases are taught, mention is rarely
(if ever) made of a mathematical relation between "quarter" and the
moon's orbit. Instead "quarter", as in "first quarter" is used as the
name of a specific lunar phase.
We're in agreement that a consistent set of terms should be used for
lunar phases.
Willie R. Meghar
Observational Notes at:
http://meghar.blogspot.com/
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 08:42:39
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
In article <1b6gk2l0urrkl8phkggb0sq4a14rk0ujgn@4ax.com >,
Willie R. Meghar <NoMail@thisaddress.net > wrote:
> pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
>> If you want to be consistent, use a consistent set of terms:
>>
>> Half, waxing = first quarter
>> Full = second quarter
>> Half, waning = third quarter
>> New = fourth quarter
>>
>> The inconsistency is due to picing the terms from one column each
>> other phase, and the other columns each other phase
>>
>> And the reason one say "first quarter" and "third quarter" is to
>> distinguish the waxing half from the waning half phase.
>>
>> But if you want to be consistent, say either:
>>
>> half, full, half, new
>>
>> or:
>>
>> first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, fourth quarter
>>
>> but don't mix the two sets of terms.
>
> Unfortunately, for U.S. readers, traditional lunar phase nomenclature
> comes from just such a mixture of sets.
>
>> Well, now YOU must educate yourself! The "quarter" doesn't refer to
>> a quarter of the full lunar phase, but instead of a quarter of the
>> moon's (synodic) orbit! And indeed, four quarters does equal one
>> full revolution.....
>
> Ah! But in the U.S., when lunar phases are taught, mention is rarely
> (if ever) made of a mathematical relation between "quarter" and the
> moon's orbit. Instead "quarter", as in "first quarter" is used as the
> name of a specific lunar phase.
That means you have an educational problem. Schools in Sweden are
definitely no better in this respect though, so we have the same
educational problem....
> We're in agreement that a consistent set of terms should be used for
> lunar phases.
Yes, but it probably won't happen. Natural language is full of similar
little inconsistencies, each with their own history. So instead of trying
to force through a consistent terminology which never will gain wide
acceptance, it's easier to learn the history of such inconsistenceis so
we know why they are there.
> Willie R. Meghar
> Observational Notes at:
> http://meghar.blogspot.com/
The usage of "first quarter" and "third quarter" (the latter sometimes
incorrectly called "last quarter") probably originated as a convenient
way to distinguish waxing half from waning half. And that also explains
why "second quarter" and "fourth quarter" are virtually never used: it
already is easy enough to distinguish new moon from full moon ....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 19:44:57
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
uh-oh, somebody's uptight. I was just making light of the ongoing question.
have a beer. :-)
"Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saaf.se > wrote in message
news:ei7oah$9tk$1@merope.saaf.se...
> In article <OqOdnXKrRul61NrYnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@bt.com>,
> Tom <tom_wade1996@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>a couple of months ago, I saw a 5/4 moon! but it got cloudy before I could
>>take a picture. How's that for math edumacation? :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>"Willie R. Meghar" <NoMail@thisaddress.net> wrote in message
>>news:m8uak2dl0ijnlreeksrb47vju0h64q03c7@4ax.com...
>>> When half the earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>>> (in the U.S.) call the lunar phase: "quarter".
>>>
>>> When the whole earth-facing hemisphere of the moon is illuminated we
>>> call the lunar phase: "full".
>>>
>>> Is it any wonder that so many children in the U.S. have difficulty
>>> understanding science and fractions (math)?
>>>
>>> Of course, there are reasons for the names we use; but I don't believe
>>> there are any "good" reasons for the mutually contradictory terms used
>>> for the above mentioned lunar phases.
>
> If you want to be consistent, use a consistent set of terms:
>
> Half, waxing = first quarter
> Full = second quarter
> Half, waning = third quarter
> New = fourth quarter
>
> The inconsistency is due to picing the terms from one column each
> other phase, and the other columns each other phase
>
> And the reason one say "first quarter" and "third quarter" is to
> distinguish the waxing half from the waning half phase.
>
> But if you want to be consistent, say either:
>
> half, full, half, new
>
> or:
>
> first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, fourth quarter
>
> but don't mix the two sets of terms.
>
>
>>> It's enough to make one wonder if some organization (comparable to the
>>> IAU) long, long ago felt there was no choice but to accept a
>>> compromise between two lunar phase nomenclature systems. After all,
>>> the current system has all appearances of having been adopted by a
>>> group of lunatics!
>>>
>>> Does this discrepancy exist in other countries?
>
> YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>>> Would the IAU be willing to draft and adopt a more rational,
>>> scientific, lunar phase nomenclature?
>
> Why don't you ask the IAU instead of us? This is not the IAU, this
> is sci.astro.amateur. But I doubt they'd be willing to do this - they
> probably don't want to get even more ridicule, after the show about
> the definition of the word "planet"....
>
> Btw, this is a question about nomenclature, not about science....
>
>>> Wouldn't it be nice if two halves equaled one whole (or two quarters
>>> equaled one half) in astronomy just as it does in mathematics?
>
> Well, now YOU must educate yourself! The "quarter" doesn't refer to
> a quarter of the full lunar phase, but instead of a quarter of the
> moon's (synodic) orbit! And indeed, four quarters does equal one
> full revolution.....
>
>>> Willie R. Meghar
>>> Observational Notes at:
>>> http://meghar.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
> WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:49:08
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
"Tom" <tom_wade1996@nospam.yahoo.com > wrote:
>a couple of months ago, I saw a 5/4 moon! but it got cloudy before I could
>take a picture. How's that for math edumacation? :-)
Very good! I'm reminded of a T-shirt on which the following was
written: "5 out of 4 people have a problem with fractions." :-)
Willie R. Meghar
Observational Notes at:
http://meghar.blogspot.com/
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 08:42:39
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
In article <g96gk2140fcio4vr6kjlaastv9m8f7i41r@4ax.com >,
Willie R. Meghar <NoMail@thisaddress.net > wrote:
> "Tom" <tom_wade1996@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> a couple of months ago, I saw a 5/4 moon! but it got cloudy before I could
>> take a picture. How's that for math edumacation? :-)
Actually, that would work: a fifth quarter moon would be the same as a first
quarter moon, but after another revolution around the Earth: both would be
a half waxing moon. Yes, fractions can be bigger than unity: such
fractions are called "improper fractions". 5/4 is an improper fraction
but still a fraction.
> Very good! I'm reminded of a T-shirt on which the following was
> written: "5 out of 4 people have a problem with fractions." :-)
...or: "There are three kinds of people: those who can count and
those who cannot count" ..... :-)
> Willie R. Meghar
> Observational Notes at:
> http://meghar.blogspot.com/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 10:38:53
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Full Moon and Quarter Moon
|
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <OqOdnXKrRul61NrYnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@bt.com>,
<snip >
> >"Willie R. Meghar" <NoMail@thisaddress.net> wrote in message
> >news:m8uak2dl0ijnlreeksrb47vju0h64q03c7@4ax.com...
<snip >
> If you want to be consistent, use a consistent set of terms:
> Half, waxing = first quarter
> Full = second quarter
> Half, waning = third quarter
> New = fourth quarter
Yeh, that's too simple. It needs to be more obtuse. -:) What about
equal time for "gibbous" waxing and waning (3/4 illumination) and
"crescent" waxing and waning (1/8 illumination). Or do I have my
phases and illuminated fractions mixed up?
- Canopus56
|
|
