It has no meaning other than near perigee, it's not like the difference in the apparent moon size is all that noticeable, and we don't say that ISS is a 'superstation' or a satellite in a Molniya orbit is a 'supersatellite' when near perigee.
For example, yesterday I saw a news coverage that discussed the relation between the lunar eclipse, the "supermoon" and the zodiac signs. (Do you know the zodiac signs are changing this night? Or it was yesterday? Anyway I think there are a few zodiac calendars with small differences at the borders.) Even if the zodiac thing makes the new more interesting, it's bad to mix it with the real scientific facts.
First, I don't see lies OR the science here -- I don't see anyone trying to imply that this is scientifically meaningful, I just see people enjoying a group event of looking at the moon. I suppose I am not sure why it is on Hacker News, though. It's fun, and it is related to intellectual curiosities, but it is not an intellectual curiosity itself.
And second, when you say "even to make something more interesting to the people", it makes me think we have a different perspective on the cause here. I'm not advocating pushing a supermoon agenda in the name of getting people interested. I'm observing that people are interested in this event and choosing not to shit on their parade.
If they start telling me to make life decisions based on the supermoon or any other astrology, that is another matter. I do have a different opinion about the mercury retrograde events, for example -- those I see framed entirely in astrological terms by people who are not using the opportunity to look up or share pictures, who don't even understand why apparent retrograde motion occurs. I don't think that's the same thing.
When I was in school we had to learn the organs of the body, the parts of a cell, and other seemingly arbitrary terms. This comes from an old tradition where "science" was roughly equivalent to "knowing names."
I also grew up in an area where evolution was a contentious topic. The teacher only covered it for one day. But it's evolution which tied together the individual fields of 'botany' and 'anatomy' and 'bacteriology' into 'biology.' Evolution is what makes Rutherford's views wrong.
Words like "supermoon" and also "blue moon" fall into that category of meaningless terms that sound scientific but are little more than numerology, and not backed by any deeper meaning.
I have no problems getting together for a 'fun celebratory event'. I celebrate on New Year's eve like many others. I've been at fun celebratory events for meteor showers, and for other eclipses.
What I have problems with is justifying it with essentially an arbitrary and meaningless definition. Why is a "supermoon" at the 90% size threshold? Why not 95% Or 99%? By comparison, the New Year is also arbitrary, but not meaningless, as the history of the calendar shows.
To directly address the grandparent, there's nothing wrong with a fun celebratory event, but that's not what this is. If we could somehow turn it into one while retaining the term, I'd be fine with that.
* Lunar eclipses are very common. They happen at least every 2 years. Every decade or so, they happen 4 times in two years.
* The term "supermoon" is a painful over exaggeration, since the visible difference between it and the average moon is tiny.
So yeah, enjoy the eclipse, but in the end it's the media trying to make news. :)
* Supermoon lunar eclipses are uncommon. * The visible difference can be up to ~14%, and its significantly brighter too.
But viewing the moon on the horizon will get you a bigger apparent size difference, no supermoon needed.
Let's coin 'superdupermoon' for the 1% case.
And ... so what? As http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/16... points out:
> Okay, the Moon is 14% bigger than usual, but can you really tell the difference? It's tricky. There are no rulers floating in the sky to measure lunar diameters. Hanging high overhead with no reference points to provide a sense of scale, one full Moon can seem much like any other.
About once a year Jupiter is in opposition. Should we call that a "super Jupiter"?
The "super moon" to me is from last quarter to new moon when it's out of the way and not flooding the sky with its unwanted brightness so I can see the deep sky :)
