Explaining the 'fat' crescent
Another misconception of Pakistanis is that if the crescent is fat, it could not possibly be the first sighting of the lunar month.
Another misconception of Pakistanis is that if the crescent is fat, it could not possibly be the first sighting of the lunar month.
Wrong. It may not be the first date of the lunar month, but it can certainly be the first sighting.
The reason for that is, if the moon's 'age' is less than 17 hours on a given day, it will set without becoming visible to the naked eye. So technically, there was a crescent, it just never got the chance to be seen from Earth. The next day at the same time, it will be 17+24=41 hours of age, and will definitely look fatter and more visible.
Blaming the Ruet-i-Hilal Committee for not spotting the young crescent on its first day is foolish – blame nature, rather.
Today, astronomy can accurately establish the time of birth of the new moon with the accuracy of seconds, and its likelihood of being visible. So, what is the harm in using this astronomical basis to reject a claimed sighting which could not possibly be correct?
No comments:
Post a Comment