In 2025 how and when to see July's full Moon and the Delta Aquariid meteor shower
Will you or won't you see the full Moon?
The full Buck Moon rises on 10 July at around 22:00 BST but whether or not you get to see it depends on where you are - and the weather conditions of course. As with the other full Moons across the year, they are named after events in nature happening around the same time. This month's full Moon was named to represent the time of year when male deer, known as bucks, begin to grow their new antlers. For many it marked the start of the game hunting season.According to the Sky at Night magazine this month's full Moon will be a low hanging one, external, meaning that in some parts of the northern hemisphere, including the UK, it might be too close to the horizon to really see it well.
More meteors for July
Starting on 12 July, the Delta Aquariid meteor shower begins its annual display, peaking on the nights of 28 and 29 July.Stargazers can expect between 15 and 20 meteors an hour especially in dark-sky locations, but you'll need to be up after midnight to see them. While they're best viewed from the southern hemisphere, observers in the northern hemisphere should still catch a decent show.They are believed to originate from Comet 96P/Machholz, a short-period comet that orbits the Sun every five years. The meteors tend to be faint, so darker skies will enhance visibility, especially around the new Moon on 24 July when it could also be possible to see parts of the Milky Way.
The Moon and Mars are a double delight
Just to keep you on tenterhooks you have to wait until July ends to see a striking conjunction of the Moon and Mars on 29 JulyIf you look to the eastern sky before dawn you should be able to see the waning crescent Moon closely aligned with the red planet.If skies are clear, you may be lucky enough to observe Mars and its striking reddish tint.Don't forget that the weather and cloud cover in your location will have an impact on what you can see, but you can check that and the sunrise/sunset times where you are on the BBC Weather app or online.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Can you see circles or rectangles? And does the answer depend on where you grew up?
Do people from different cultures and environments see the world differently? Two recent studies have different takes on this decades-long controversy. The answer might be more complicated, and more interesting, than either study suggests. One study, led by Ivan Kroupin at the London School of Economics, asked how people from different cultures perceived a visual illusion known as the Coffer illusion. They discovered that people in the UK and US saw it mainly in one way, as comprising rectangles – while people from rural communities in Namibia typically saw it another way: as containing circles. To explain these differences, Kroupin and colleagues appeal to a hypothesis raised more than 60 years ago and argued about ever since. The idea is that people in western industrialised countries (these days known by the acronym 'weird' – for western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic – a summary that is increasingly questionable) see things in a specific way because they are generally exposed to highly 'carpentered' environments, with lots of straight lines, right angles – visual features common in western architecture. By contrast, people from non-'weird' societies – like those in rural Namibia – inhabit environments with fewer sharp lines and angular geometric forms, so their visual abilities will be tuned differently. The study argues that the tendency of rural Namibians to see circles rather than rectangles in the Coffer illusion is due to their environments being dominated by structures such as round huts instead of angular environments. They back up this conclusion with similar results from several other visual illusions, all supposedly tapping into basic brain mechanisms involved in visual perception. So far, so good for the cross-cultural perceptual psychologists, and for the 'carpentered world' hypothesis. The second study, by Dorsa Amir and Chaz Firestone, takes a sledgehammer to this hypothesis, but for the much better-known illusion: the Müller-Lyer illusion. Two lines of equal length seem to be different lengths because of the context provided by inward-pointing, compared with outward-pointing, arrowheads. It's a very powerful illusion. I've seen it on thousands of occasions and it works every time for me. There are many explanations for why the Müller-Lyer illusion is so effective. One of the more popular is that the arrowheads are interpreted by the brain as cues about three-dimensional depth, so our brains implicitly interpret the illusion as representing an object of some kind, with right angles and straight lines. This explanation fits neatly with the 'carpentered world' hypothesis – and indeed a lot of early support for this hypothesis relied on apparent cultural variability in how the Müller-Lyer illusion is perceived. In their study, Amir and Firestone carefully and convincingly dismantle this explanation. They point out that non-human animals experience the illusion, as shown in a range of studies in which animals (including guppies, pigeons and bearded dragons) are trained to prefer the longer of two lines, and then presented with the Müller-Lyer image. They show that it works without straight lines, and for touch as well as vision. They note that it even works for people who until recently have been blind, referencing an astonishing experiment in which nine children, blind from birth because of dense cataracts, were shown the illusion immediately after the cataracts were surgically removed. Not only had these children not seen highly carpentered environments – they hadn't seen anything at all. After you absorb their analysis, it's pretty clear that the Müller-Lyer illusion is not due to culturally specific exposure to carpentry. Why the discrepancy? There are several possibilities. Perhaps there are reasons why cross-cultural variability should be expected for the Coffer but not the Müller-Lyer illusion (one possibility here is that the Coffer illusion is based on how people pay attention to things, rather than on some more basic aspect of perception). It could also be that there are systematic differences in perception between cultures, but that the 'carpentered world' hypothesis is not the correct explanation. It's also worth noting that the Kroupin study has some potential weaknesses. For example, the UK/US and Namibian participants were exposed to the illusions using very different methods. All in all, the jury remains out and – favourite scientist punt coming up – 'more research is needed'. The notion that people from different cultures vary in how they experience things is certainly plausible. There's a wealth of evidence that as we grow up our brains are shaped, at least to some extent, by features of our environments. And just as we all differ in our externally visible characteristics – height, body shape and so on – we will all differ on the inside too. As the author Anaïs Nin put it in quoting the Talmud: 'We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.' For me, an important implication of this line of thought is that there are likely to be substantial differences in perception within 'groups' as well as between them. This will probably hold however these 'groups' are defined, whether as different cultures or as a contrast between 'neurotypical' and 'neurodivergent' people. I believe that paying more attention to within-group perceptual diversity will help us to better interpret the differences we do find between groups, and equip us with the tools needed to resist relying on simple cultural stereotypes as explanations. More research is needed here too. But it's on the way. In the Perception Census, a project led by my research group at the University of Sussex together with professor Fiona Macpherson at the University of Glasgow, we are studying how perception differs in a large sample of about 40,000 people from more than 100 countries. Our experiment includes not just one or two visual illusions but more than 50 different experiments probing many different aspects of perception. When we're done analysing the data, we hope to deliver a uniquely detailed picture of how people experience their world, both within and between cultures. We'll also make the data openly available for other researchers to explore new ideas in this important area. One critical insight lies behind all these questions. How things seem is not how they are. For each of us, it might seem as though we see the world exactly as it is; as if our senses are transparent windows through with the world pours itself directly into our mind. But how things are is very different. The objective world no doubt exists, but the world we experience is always an active construction, a kind of 'controlled hallucination' in which the brain uses sensory signals to update and calibrate its best interpretation of what's going on. What we experience is this interpretation, not a 'readout' of the sensory information. For me, this is the key insight that underlies any claim about perceptual diversity. When we take it fully on board, it encourages a much-needed humility about our own ways of seeing. We live in perceptual echo chambers, just as we do in those of social media, and the first step to escaping any echo chamber is to realise that you're in one. Anil Seth is a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience at the University of Sussex, and author of the Sunday Times bestseller Being You: A New Science of Consciousness
The Independent
7 hours ago
- The Independent
The gym bro supplement that may be a game changer for women in midlife
Until recently, creatine supplements was almost exclusively used by athletes and bodybuilders looking to enhance performance and pack on muscle mass. But now there is a surprising rapidly growing market for it: middle aged women. While Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson still puts in his protein shake to 'put on size,' Ivanka Trump revealed earlier this year she takes a dose with her morning smoothie. From fitness influencers on TikTok to health experts, the chalky powder is now being touted for a range of benefits for women. So, what exactly is creatine and does the science back up the hype? 'Creatine is a natural compound that comes from three amino acids – arginine, glycine, and methionine,' Dr. Rupa Parmar, a physician and Director at Midland Health, tells The Independent. 'It's stored mainly in our muscles to help produce energy.' While small amounts come from foods like red meat and fish, our bodies also make about a gram each day. Most women don't get the recommended three to five grams per day from food, Rupar said, and supplementation may help. 'Women naturally have much lower creatine stores than men and usually eat less of it in their diet, so they may actually benefit more from taking creatine to boost their levels,' he added. Creatine's rise as a go-to supplement can be traced to 1992 when British sprinter Linford Christie and hurdler Sally Gunnell, both vocal about its use, won gold at the Barcelona Olympics. Glossy fitness magazines began branding it a 'breakthrough'; a 1998 article in Fortune magazine called the compound 'nature's steroid'; a Los Angeles Times headline blared, 'Power powder.' While much of its early reputation focused on muscle-building and workout recovery, research suggests creatine's benefits may extend beyond the gym. Creatine has been linked to improved memory, brain health, depression treatment and increased energy. 'It can even support brain health, with studies suggesting the substance helps to improve cognitive function and provide some protection as we age,' Rupar said. A preliminary study by the University of Kansas Medical Center on people with Alzheimer's found that creatine supplements may improve memory and executive function. Creatine may also offer benefits tied to hormonal fluctuations. 'Creatine can help ease fatigue during your period by supporting stable energy levels,' Rupar continued, 'especially when you're feeling more tired.' Oestrogen and progesterone, hormones that regulate the menstrual cycle, influence how the body produces and uses creatine, he explained. 'During the menstrual cycle, creatine levels can change, and supplements may help keep energy and muscle function more stable, especially when oestrogen is low,' Rupar said. For women approaching or going through menopause, creatine appears especially promising as it may help counteract declines in muscle mass, strength, and bone density, particularly when combined with resistance training. One 12-month study found that creatine reduced the loss of bone mineral density in 47 postmenopausal women. For all its potential upsides, creatine isn't without drawbacks. One of the most common complaints is bloating: because it saturates the muscles, it may cause water retention, which sometimes leads to a bloated feeling and a few extra pounds on the scale from water weight. Still, studies have repeatedly shown creatine to be safe for most healthy adults when taken at recommended doses. Experts advise consulting a healthcare provider before starting, especially for those with kidney conditions or who are on medication.
BBC News
7 hours ago
- BBC News
Hull hospitals scan more patients with AI technology
Staff at NHS hospitals in Hull said AI technology had cut MRI scan times, allowing them to see more University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust said the software used algorithms to help reduce background noise, helping to achieve sharper images in a shorter Bunker, head of imaging, said: "This means we can reduce the scanning time on certain sequences, but still get the same imaging quality."The software has been installed at Hull Royal Infirmary and Castle Hill Hospital and will also be introduced at Scunthorpe General Hospital and Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital in Grimsby. The Air Recon Deep Learning (ARDL) software was installed on the hospitals' existing MRI said the software was cutting between 10 and 15 minutes from average scan times. A routine MRI head scan used to take 30 minutes but now takes 20, the trust said, while a prostate scan now takes 30 minutes instead of 45. The trust added it can now scan 31 lumber spine patients over a 12 hour period, instead of 21 Bunker said: "People who struggle with claustrophobia or those with learning disabilities, who previously couldn't tolerate a scan, are finding they are able to endure the shorter scan times."Staff also reported fewer children needed to have a general anaesthetic to get through a to highlights from Hull and East Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
