Most interesting aspect of July Buck Moon and when it peaks
Space.com said that a full moon occurs when the moon and the sun are positioned opposite of each other, making it appear fully lit from the Earth's perspective.
Video Above: Seasonal conditions to end with triple-digits forecasted for this week
July's Buck Moon will peak at 4:36 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, but will not be visible on the West Coast until the moon rises above the southern horizon at sunset Pacific Standard Time.
According to Space.com, the Buck Moon, also known as the Thunder Moon, is the farthest full moon from the sun in 2025. This is due to the Earth reaching the point in its orbit where it is the most distant from the sun, also known as aphelion, a week prior.
Since the full moon is close to the summer solstice, it is expected to appear low in the sky after sunset, with the sun at its highest point during the day.
More details on the full moons and aphelion can be found on space.com.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Experts ask where the center of the universe is
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. About a century ago, scientists were struggling to reconcile what seemed a contradiction in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. Published in 1915, and already widely accepted worldwide by physicists and mathematicians, the theory assumed the universe was static – unchanging, unmoving and immutable. In short, Einstein believed the size and shape of the universe today was, more or less, the same size and shape it had always been. But when astronomers looked into the night sky at faraway galaxies with powerful telescopes, they saw hints the universe was anything but that. These new observations suggested the opposite – that it was, instead, expanding. Scientists soon realized Einstein's theory didn't actually say the universe had to be static; the theory could support an expanding universe as well. Indeed, by using the same mathematical tools provided by Einstein's theory, scientists created new models that showed the universe was, in fact, dynamic and evolving. I've spent decades trying to understand general relativity, including in my current job as a physics professor teaching courses on the subject. I know wrapping your head around the idea of an ever-expanding universe can feel daunting – and part of the challenge is overriding your natural intuition about how things work. For instance, it's hard to imagine something as big as the universe not having a center at all, but physics says that's the reality. First, let's define what's meant by "expansion." On Earth, "expanding" means something is getting bigger. And in regard to the universe, that's true, sort of. Expansion might also mean "everything is getting farther from us," which is also true with regard to the universe. Point a telescope at distant galaxies and they all do appear to be moving away from us. What's more, the farther away they are, the faster they appear to be moving. Those galaxies also seem to be moving away from each other. So it's more accurate to say that everything in the universe is getting farther away from everything else, all at once. This idea is subtle but critical. It's easy to think about the creation of the universe like exploding fireworks: Start with a big bang, and then all the galaxies in the universe fly out in all directions from some central point. But that analogy isn't correct. Not only does it falsely imply that the expansion of the universe started from a single spot, which it didn't, but it also suggests that the galaxies are the things that are moving, which isn't entirely accurate. It's not so much the galaxies that are moving away from each other – it's the space between galaxies, the fabric of the universe itself, that's ever-expanding as time goes on. In other words, it's not really the galaxies themselves that are moving through the universe; it's more that the universe itself is carrying them farther away as it expands. A common analogy is to imagine sticking some dots on the surface of a balloon. As you blow air into the balloon, it expands. Because the dots are stuck on the surface of the balloon, they get farther apart. Though they may appear to move, the dots actually stay exactly where you put them, and the distance between them gets bigger simply by virtue of the balloon's expansion. Now think of the dots as galaxies and the balloon as the fabric of the universe, and you begin to get the picture. Unfortunately, while this analogy is a good start, it doesn't get the details quite right either. Important to any analogy is an understanding of its limitations. Some flaws are obvious: A balloon is small enough to fit in your hand – not so the universe. Another flaw is more subtle. The balloon has two parts: its latex surface and its air-filled interior. These two parts of the balloon are described differently in the language of mathematics. The balloon's surface is two-dimensional. If you were walking around on it, you could move forward, backward, left, or right, but you couldn't move up or down without leaving the surface. Now it might sound like we're naming four directions here – forward, backward, left and right – but those are just movements along two basic paths: side to side and front to back. That's what makes the surface two-dimensional – length and width. The inside of the balloon, on the other hand, is three-dimensional, so you'd be able to move freely in any direction, including up or down – length, width and height. This is where the confusion lies. The thing we think of as the "center" of the balloon is a point somewhere in its interior, in the air-filled space beneath the surface. But in this analogy, the universe is more like the latex surface of the balloon. The balloon's air-filled interior has no counterpart in our universe, so we can't use that part of the analogy – only the surface matters. So asking, "Where's the center of the universe?" is somewhat like asking, "Where's the center of the balloon's surface?' There simply isn't one. You could travel along the surface of the balloon in any direction, for as long as you like, and you'd never once reach a place you could call its center because you'd never actually leave the surface. In the same way, you could travel in any direction in the universe and would never find its center because, much like the surface of the balloon, it simply doesn't have one. Part of the reason this can be so challenging to comprehend is because of the way the universe is described in the language of mathematics. The surface of the balloon has two dimensions, and the balloon's interior has three, but the universe exists in four dimensions. Because it's not just about how things move in space, but how they move in time. Our brains are wired to think about space and time separately. But in the universe, they're interwoven into a single fabric, called 'space-time.' That unification changes the way the universe works relative to what our intuition expects. And this explanation doesn't even begin to answer the question of how something can be expanding indefinitely – scientists are still trying to puzzle out what powers this expansion. So in asking about the center of the universe, we're confronting the limits of our intuition. The answer we find – everything, expanding everywhere, all at once – is a glimpse of just how strange and beautiful our universe is. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Fox News
40 minutes ago
- Fox News
Men face double dementia risk if they have a hidden genetic mutation
A hidden genetic mutation could predict a man's likelihood of developing dementia. That's according to an Australian study led by Monash and Curtin Universities, which analyzed the medical data of thousands of Australians and Americans. Men who had a certain variant in the haemochromatosis (HFE) gene — which regulates iron levels in the body — were found to be at a higher risk of dementia, the researchers found. Previously healthy men over age 70 who have two copies of the variant, which is known as H63D, are at least twice — or up to four times — as likely to develop dementia. Having just one copy did not appear to elevate the risk. One in 36 men carry two copies of the mutation; one in three have just a single copy. "It is only men who have two copies of the variant that are at risk," study co-author Professor John Olynyk from the Curtin Medical School told Fox News Digital. "Women are not affected by the abnormality – we do not know why that is at the current point in time." The study, which was published in the journal Neurology, used data from the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which gathered health and aging data for 19,114 healthy older adults. Those who have the genetic variant can't change it, but it's possible that the "brain pathways" it affects could be treated, Olynyk noted. "The HFE gene is routinely tested for in most Western countries … when assessing people for haemochromatosis, a disorder that causes the body to absorb too much iron," the doctor said. "Our findings suggest that perhaps this testing could be offered to men more broadly." Despite the fact that the HFE gene is responsible for controlling iron levels, the team found no direct link between iron and dementia risk. "Our findings suggest that perhaps this testing could be offered to men more broadly." "This points to other mechanisms at play, possibly involving the increased risk of brain injury from inflammation and cell damage in the body," Olynyk added. More research is needed to determine why the heightened risk wasn't seen in women. "Understanding why men with the double H63D variant are at higher risk could pave the way for more personalized approaches to prevention and treatment," added co-author Professor Paul Lacaze from Monash University in a press release. The main limitation of the study, according to Olynyk, was that the study population was largely composed of Australians. "Whether other populations exhibit the same effects is unclear," he told Fox News Digital. "Our work should be repeated in different countries to assess this." "Further research will be undertaken to try and determine the likely mechanism by which this anomaly causes dementia and what more we can do to reduce the impact of it." Beyond this specific mutation, many other genetic and environmental factors can contribute to dementia risk, Olynyk noted. "While genetic risk factors cannot be changed, the mechanisms by which these genetic abnormalities and environmental factors cause disease may well be modifiable to some extent, through adopting a healthy lifestyle and being proactive about maintaining an overall good state of health," he said. To reduce risk, the researchers recommend adopting a healthy lifestyle that includes exercising regularly, eating a nutritious diet, minimizing alcohol intake, remaining mentally active, and seeing a doctor to address any medical problem known to increase the likelihood of dementia. For more Health articles, visit The University of Melbourne, The Royal Children's Hospital, Murdoch Children's Research Institute and Fiona Stanley Hospital also contributed to the study.
Washington Post
43 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump administration says it won't publish major climate change report on NASA website as promised
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday took another step to make it harder to find major, legally mandated scientific assessments of how climate change is endangering the nation and its people. Earlier this month, the official government websites that hosted the authoritative, peer-reviewed national climate assessments went dark. Such sites tell state and local governments and the public what to expect in their backyards from a warming world and how best to adapt to it. At the time, the White House said NASA would house the reports to comply with a 1990 law that requires the reports , which the space agency said it planned to do.
