NASA and CNN Get The Dark Side Of The Moon Thing Wrong – Again
FWIW @DominicAngelini @TSHamiltonAstro on the left is the Dark Side of the Moon. On the right is the Far Side of the Moon. They are very easy to tell apart. #moon #lunar pic.twitter.com/YkM2oY2FMS
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) August 18, 2018
|
|
From a Million Miles Away, NASA Camera Shows Moon Crossing Face of Earth, NASA (2015)
“A NASA camera aboard the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured a unique view of the moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth last month. The series of test images shows the fully illuminated “dark side” of the moon that is never visible from Earth.”
Keith’s note: Ok, putting aside the inaccurate nomenclature for a moment, NASA, if the “dark side” is “fully illuminated” then its not the “dark side”, right?
That is why it is in quotes. Quoted phrases do not mean what they say like:
he went with his ‘wife’ to the hotel.
Yes and no. That is what the quotation marks imply, but it isn’t honest to simply make a false statement, slap quotation marks around it, and claim you are telling the truth. In your example, the implication is that the man claimed the person he went to the hotel with was his wife. If he had never said or implied anything of the sort, the statement would be false and putting wife in quotes wouldn’t change that. Similarly, since the far side of the Moon isn’t dark, stating that it is is incorrect and putting it in quotes doesn’t change that fact.
Exactly. In this case I thought it was a shout-out to Pink Floyd.
Did the Sun ever shine in “Darkest Africa”? The expression meant it was unknown, not yet illuminated by the light of knowledge. Foolish, racist, colonialist it may very well have been, but it had nothing to do with sunlight. Ditto the ‘dark side of the Moon’. We didn’t know anything about it. It is ridiculously outdated now, but the criticism should be that it is out of date, not somehow related to sunlight.
You’re welcome.
Believe it or not some people also think that “dark” means dark – and do not know that the Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit.
Actually the criticism is that it confuses a large segment of the general public, the majority of whom are unfortunately scientifically challenged to begin with. Using confusing and misleading terminology doesn’t help. I’m not saying that anyone is intentionally trying to mislead, but the end result is the same.
I can give a pass to whoever first used the phrase as I assume they were just being poetic, and normally it would be commendable to use a one-word adjective to convey a larger meaning, in this case as you mentioned the fact that nearly half of the Moon was a complete mystery, never having been seen or photographed. However I suspect that even prior to 1959 the phrase was already starting to create some confusion and probably should have been retired even back then. But certainly now that the far side of the moon is no longer unknown there is no reason to use the term, which is not just antiquated but no longer accurate (to the extent that it used to be accurate). In fact when someone uses that term it calls into question whether they understand that there is no side of the Moon that is perpetually dark. If they do know that, then why use inaccurate terminology.
Of course not helping the matter is the iconic Pink Floyd album title, which helped perpetuate the phrase (even though the album had nothing to do with the actual Moon it was referring to lunacy). But I give them a pass also, after all they are musicians not reporters.
No, it’s never been about ignorant/uneducated people. It’s always been about nerds being pedantic wankers.
Including me. When I was younger, I would have bristled just as much. But I gradually came to realise that language isn’t maths. That “ten times less” doesn’t mean “negative nine times”. That something “which begs the question”, has nothing to do with the obscure circular reasoning fallacy “begging the question”, in spite of the coincidence of wording.
And that the “dark side of the moon” isn’t literal…
…Although in terms of albedo, it is darker than the near-side. Similarly, facing away from Earth means it achieves much darker nights. So technically…
If by “side” we were referring to any hemisphere with the lowest average albedo, it is unlikely that the darker hemisphere is either pointing towards or away from Earth. But the terminology being discussed here is being used to differentiate two specific hemispheres, the hemisphere nearest Earth on average, and the hemisphere farthest from Earth. Since this is a positional description, near and far are logical names to describe these two hemispheres. Whereas using attributes about the two hemispheres such as average albedo makes for a very poor description, IMHO. No different than referring to one as the more heavily cratered side and the other as the less cratered side. That would be perfectly fine in a discussion about cratering, but not as a name to differentiate these two hemispheres in a general discussion about the Moon.
I had thought of the darker nights on the far side, considering that even with the Moon’s low albedo we are able to see Earthshine with the naked eye, even while being blinded by the adjacent illuminated regions. It’s fun to imagine taking a nighttime stroll on the near side of the Moon during full Earth, I imagine reading a newspaper would be no problem considering that some people claim to be able to do so during a full Moon once their eyes have dark adapted. Whereas on the far side you would only have starlight, even with the lack of atmosphere it would probably only be good enough to keep from tripping over a rock but that’s about it.
However even though total sunlight received does involve each side’s position in relation to Earth, if we look at total sunlight received during the synodic month the additional amount added by Earthshine is minimal. Again in a discussion about sunlight received it would be reasonable to refer to one as the darker side and the other as the brighter side. But in a general discussion about the Moon, referring to the two hemispheres as the dark side and the bright side seems like a total fail, assuming that the goal of language is to communicate ideas as clearly as possible.
In other words in this case I think your younger self was correct 🙂
Just for reference, the near side is darker in terms of albedo. The maria are darker than the highlands, and the maria are preferentially on the near side. Of course, the alignment isn’t perfect. If you wanted to define a literal hemisphere, it would probably be off by thirty degrees or so.
Calling that side something (i.e. the side with the maria) is certainly meaningful. Calling it the dark side would just be a joke and cause more confusion. But geographic accuracy isn’t required: The hemispheric dichotomy on Mars is commonly referred to a “north” and “south”, even though the boundary doesn’t run along the equator. So I don’t have problems saying the near side of the Moon is darker than the far side.
Also, the light of a full Earth seen from the Moon would be about 30 to 35 times brighter than a full Moon seen from Earth. I don’t think I could read a book by that, but I’m pretty sure I could read a street sign.
They would be better off using “The Far Side”. It is clear and concise. Clear and concise is the best way to write about anything. Besides it pays homage to Gary Larson and his fine works
Near side and far side would also be an improvement over what planetary scientists use for other moons. If it’s tidally locked, the usage is “sub-[adjectival name]” and “anti-[adjectival name]” (e.g. sub-jovian, anti-saturnian, etc.) That’s sort of cumbersome and awkward.
Maybe we should name a crater after Larsen, for coming up with a clear and concise name for the dark (or perhaps bright) side of the moon.
It just occurred to me that, in a strict, astronomical sense, the Moon does have a dark side. Like just about all solid bodies in the solar system, one hemisphere of the Moon is darker (reflects less sunlight) than the other. Although, as a matter of fact, it’s all rather dim.
The darker hemisphere is primarily due to maria being dark and preferentially on one side of the Moon. By eye and looking at a map, that dark hemisphere is centered around 30 deg. west longitude. Unfortunately (or not), that’s the _near_ not the far side of the Moon.
By the way, one problem with this whole “dark side of the Moon” business is that some people have very mistaken ideas about the value of a far side observatory. The value has nothing to do with the Sun being below the horizon all the time because, well, it isn’t.
Let’s not forget that this is the network that stated the Space Shuttle travels at 25 times the speed of light.
Heck, having most of the maria the near side is the “dark side”. And later this year after China’s Chang’e-4 lands on the far side we can start calling it the Red Side.
So your solution is to deliberately confuse people with two different tems?