The New World Calendar

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
83 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Mikhail Petin
Dear Joe and Calendar People,

Your comment is exhaustive explanation.
There are the mean day = 1 MEAN day, a MEAN tropical solar year
= 365,242195 MEAN days.
I hope Karl will correct his web-pages and Wikipedia

JOE SAYS:
Your solar year is the mean tropical year,
which uses an imaginary or fictitious Sun moving along
the ecliptic at a constant speed, that is,
an average or mean Sun.
In contrast, the true tropical year uses the true or
visible Sun moving along the ecliptic at a variable speed.
The length of the true tropical year depends on its point
of origin.
The four equinoxes and solstices result in four different kinds
of true tropical years:
the vernal equinox year, the summer solstice year,
the autumnal equinox year, and the winter solstice year.
Their lengths depend on the movement of the perihelion (fast Sun)
and aphelion (slow Sun) relative to the equinoxes and solstices.
The mean Sun of the mean tropical year does not even have
a perihelion or aphelion.
Although the vernal equinox is a single point on the celestial sphere,
where the ecliptic crosses the celestial equator, the mean Sun
and the visible Sun reach it at different times.
The time/date of the vernal equinox given in almanacs is
when the visible Sun reaches it.

MIKHAIL SAYS:
- Mean solar year (tropical) = 365,242195 mean days - mean duration
of the time interval between two consecutive passages of the centre
of the Sun, for example, through the Eastern equinox point,

KARL SAYS:
The definition "mean duration of the time interval between
two consecutive passages of the centre of the Sun through
the Northward equinox point" refers to what we call
the Vernal equinox year, but the value 365.242195 days refers to
what we call the mean tropical year (as defined below).
These two tropical years are different.

This failure to differentiate the two is the well established ERROR
IN THE STATEMENT OF THE TROPICAL YEAR.
http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/cassidy/err_trop.htm 

A tropical year is the length of time that the Sun, as viewed from the Earth,
takes to return to the same position along the ecliptic
(its path among the stars on the celestial sphere) measured relative to
the equinoxes and solstices (not the fixed stars).
The mean duration of this period depends on where on the ecliptic
that 'same point' is.
If this is averaged for every 'same point' you get what
we call the Mean Tropical Year which is about 365.2422 days.
However a simpler definition in which the 'same point' is
the March equinox is often used.
The correct value for this tropical year is about 365.2424 days.
This we call the Vernal Equinox Year.

Best regards
Mikhail Petin
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/Bible.htm 
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://Petin1Mikhail.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://NewWorldCalendar.narod.ru/index.htm 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Joe Kress
Mikhail wrote:

> Your comment is exhaustive explanation.
> There are the mean day = 1 MEAN day, a MEAN tropical solar year
> = 365,242195 MEAN days.
> I hope Karl will correct his web-pages and Wikipedia

I assume your 'mean day' is the average length of the solar day
over an entire year. The true solar day can be as much as 30
seconds longer or shorter than the mean solar day at certain
times of the year. The summation or integral of all those long
and short days over the course of a year is the "equation of
time", which can reach +17 minutes or -14 minutes. But all
astronomical days have been mean solar days since about 1830. The
'mean' in the mean tropical year is something else entirely.

The length of the tropical year in mean solar days varies from
year to year due to perturbations of Earth's elliptical orbit by
the other planets. Its average over many years is called the mean
tropical year. Its J2000.0 value is 365.242190 mean solar days
and is gradually decreasing. Newcomb's mean tropical year was
365.242199 days at 1900.0. Your 365.242195 days is midway between
them, maybe its B1950.0 value. You might be using a value from an
old reference book.

My earlier explanation was wrong. I'll try again. For this
explanation, assume that Earth's elliptical orbit is not
perturbed by any other planet. If so, it is fixed in inertial
space, and the time to complete one orbit (360°) is always the
same, regardless of its starting point. With this restriction,
this fixed time is either the anomalistic year or the sidereal
year, depending on your point of view.

Precession is 50" per year. For Earth to complete its orbit, it
needs to move an extra 50" beyond one tropical year. The time it
takes the Earth to traverse most of its orbit, 360°-50", its
partial tropical-year orbit, varies depending on the relation of
its starting point (an equinox or solstice) to the apsides
(perihelion and aphelion) of the ellipse. Earth's fast speed near
perihelion at the winter solstice causes Earth to traverse that
extra 50" in an unusually short time. When subtracted from the
fixed anomalistic/sidereal year, the time for the partial
tropical-year orbit is lengthened to 365.242740 days, the winter
solstice tropical year. Near aphelion the summer solstice
tropical year in shortened to 365.241626 days. The equinoctial
years are midway--the vernal equinox tropical year is 365.242374
days and the autumnal equinox tropical year is 365.242018 days.
The average of these four tropical years is the mean tropical
year. If Earth's orbit was circular, it would always traverse the
partial tropical-year orbit in 365.242190 days, the mean tropical
year.

Joe Kress
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Mikhail Petin
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
Dear Joe and Calendar People,

JOE SAYS that Mikhail wrote:
> Your comment is exhaustive explanation.
> There are the mean day = 1 MEAN day, a MEAN tropical solar year
> = 365,242195 MEAN days.
> I hope Karl will correct his web-pages and Wikipedia

JOE SAYS:
I assume your 'mean day' is the average length of the solar day
over an entire year. The true solar day can be as much as 30
seconds longer or shorter than the mean solar day at certain
times of the year. The summation or integral of all those long
and short days over the course of a year is the "equation of
time", which can reach +17 minutes or -14 minutes. But all
astronomical days have been mean solar days since about 1830. The
'mean' in the mean tropical year is something else entirely.

The length of the tropical year in mean solar days varies from
year to year due to perturbations of Earth's elliptical orbit by
the other planets. Its average over many years is called the mean
tropical year. Its J2000.0 value is 365.242190 mean solar days
and is gradually decreasing. Newcomb's mean tropical year was
365.242199 days at 1900.0. Your 365.242195 days is midway between
them, maybe its B1950.0 value. You might be using a value from an
old reference book.

MIKHAIL SAYS:
You say truly.

JOE SAYS:
My earlier explanation was wrong.

MIKHAIL SAYS:
It is impossible.

JOE SAYS:
I'll try again. For this explanation, assume that Earth's elliptical
orbit is not perturbed by any other planet. If so, it is fixed
in inertial space, and the time to complete one orbit (360.) is
always the same, regardless of its starting point. With this
restriction, this fixed time is either the anomalistic year or
the sidereal year, depending on your point of view.

MIKHAIL SAYS:
On my view the explanation given below is wrong.

JOE SAYS:
Precession is 50" per year. For Earth to complete its orbit, it
needs to move an extra 50" beyond one tropical year. The time it
takes the Earth to traverse most of its orbit, 360.-50", its
partial tropical-year orbit, varies depending on the relation of
its starting point (an equinox or solstice) to the apsides
(perihelion and aphelion) of the ellipse. Earth's fast speed near
perihelion at the winter solstice causes Earth to traverse that
extra 50" in an unusually short time. When subtracted from the
fixed anomalistic/sidereal year, the time for the partial
tropical-year orbit is lengthened to 365.242740 days, the winter
solstice tropical year. Near aphelion the summer solstice
tropical year in shortened to 365.241626 days. The equinoctial
years are midway--the vernal equinox tropical year is 365.242374
days and the autumnal equinox tropical year is 365.242018 days.
The average of these four tropical years is the mean tropical
year. If Earth's orbit was circular, it would always traverse the
partial tropical-year orbit in 365.242190 days, the mean tropical
year.

MIKHAIL SAYS:
1. The tropical year = 365,242190 MEAN days should be the only thing
for any points of the ecliptic.
      This value shows an angular way made by the Earth during the year.
this angular way is the same for  any points of the ecliptic.
     Values:    365,242740 days,
                365,241626 days,
                365,242374 days,
                365,242018 days,
    don.t show an angular way made by the Earth during the year and,
therefore, they are a nonsense. It is possible a Karl.s delusion.
2.  Precession has a constant value and constant mark during the year
     and, therefore, is not the reason of changing of
     an angular Earth.s velocity during the year.
3.  The reason of changing of an angular Earth.s velocity during the year
    is 2-nd law of Keppler.

Joe, you are an experienced calendar-man. I have a favour to ask of you
come back to previous your objective true positions.

Best regards
Mikhail Petin
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/Bible.htm 
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://Petin1Mikhail.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://NewWorldCalendar.narod.ru/index.htm
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Sepp Rothwangl
In reply to this post by Palmen, KEV (Karl)
Am 24.02.2006 um 13:56 schrieb Palmen, KEV (Karl):
>> KARL SAYS:
>  A tropical year is the length of time that the Sun, as viewed from
> the Earth, takes to
> return to the same position along the ecliptic (its path among the
> stars on the celestial
> sphere) measured relative to the equinoxes and solstices (not the
> fixed stars).
>

Hi Karl,
i miss the word AVERAGE in the length of the year ...

Sepp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
Dear Mikhail and Calendar People

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Mikhail Petin
Sent: 25 February 2006 10:58
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: The New World Calendar


Dear Joe and Calendar People,

Your comment is exhaustive explanation.
There are the mean day = 1 MEAN day, a MEAN tropical solar year
= 365,242195 MEAN days.
I hope Karl will correct his web-pages and Wikipedia

KARL SAYS: My web-pages and wikipedia are correct and in accordance with the explanations provide by Joe and myself. The MEAN sun passes along the ecliptic at a constant speed (unlike the real sun), so gives rise to the mean tropical year, regardless of start point (unlike the real sun).

Karl

07(17(29 till noon



>JOE SAYS:
Your solar year is the mean tropical year,
which uses an imaginary or fictitious Sun moving along
the ecliptic at a constant speed, that is,
an average or mean Sun.
In contrast, the true tropical year uses the true or
visible Sun moving along the ecliptic at a variable speed.
The length of the true tropical year depends on its point
of origin.
The four equinoxes and solstices result in four different kinds
of true tropical years:
the vernal equinox year, the summer solstice year,
the autumnal equinox year, and the winter solstice year.
Their lengths depend on the movement of the perihelion (fast Sun)
and aphelion (slow Sun) relative to the equinoxes and solstices.
The mean Sun of the mean tropical year does not even have
a perihelion or aphelion.
Although the vernal equinox is a single point on the celestial sphere,
where the ecliptic crosses the celestial equator, the mean Sun
and the visible Sun reach it at different times.
The time/date of the vernal equinox given in almanacs is
when the visible Sun reaches it.

>MIKHAIL SAYS:
- Mean solar year (tropical) = 365,242195 mean days - mean duration
of the time interval between two consecutive passages of the centre
of the Sun, for example, through the Eastern equinox point,

>KARL SAYS:
The definition "mean duration of the time interval between
two consecutive passages of the centre of the Sun through
the Northward equinox point" refers to what we call
the Vernal equinox year, but the value 365.242195 days refers to
what we call the mean tropical year (as defined below).
These two tropical years are different.

This failure to differentiate the two is the well established ERROR
IN THE STATEMENT OF THE TROPICAL YEAR.
http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/cassidy/err_trop.htm 

A tropical year is the length of time that the Sun, as viewed from the Earth,
takes to return to the same position along the ecliptic
(its path among the stars on the celestial sphere) measured relative to
the equinoxes and solstices (not the fixed stars).
The mean duration of this period depends on where on the ecliptic
that 'same point' is.
If this is averaged for every 'same point' you get what
we call the Mean Tropical Year which is about 365.2422 days.
However a simpler definition in which the 'same point' is
the March equinox is often used.
The correct value for this tropical year is about 365.2424 days.
This we call the Vernal Equinox Year.

Best regards
Mikhail Petin
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/Bible.htm 
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://Petin1Mikhail.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://NewWorldCalendar.narod.ru/index.htm 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Mikhail Petin
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
Dear Karl and Calendar People,

KARL SAYS:
..If this is averaged for every 'same point' you get what
we call the Mean Tropical Year which is about 365.2422 days.
  However a simpler definition in which the 'same point' is
the March equinox is often used.
  The correct value for this tropical year is about 365.2424 days.
This we call the Vernal Equinox Year.

MIKHAIL SAYS:
The last sentence is wrong.

1. The tropical year = 365,242190 MEAN days should be the only thing
for any points of the ecliptic.
      This value shows an angular way made by the Earth during the year.
This angular way is the same for any points of the ecliptic.
   
         Values:    365,242740 days,
                    365,241626 days,
                    365,242374 days,
                    365,242018 days,
    don.t show an angular way made by the Earth during the year and,
therefore, they are a nonsense. Karl, this is your delusion.

2. It is necessary to specify each calendar postulate for the members of List.
I offer 2 postulate for the beginning:

- day (day + night) - mean duration of a revolution of the Earth around the its axis
during the annual moving of Sun along the ecliptic,
- solar year (tropical) = 365,242195 days - mean duration of the time interval
between two consecutive passages of the centre of the Sun, for example, through the
Eastern equinox point,

Best regards
Mikhail Petin
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/Bible.htm 
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://Petin1Mikhail.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://NewWorldCalendar.narod.ru/index.htm
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Deckers, Michael
In reply to this post by Sepp Rothwangl
   On 2006-02-24, Sepp Rothwangl wrote:

>  I miss the word AVERAGE in the length of the year ...

   A tropical year is not defined as an average in modern astronomy, nor
   does it seem to be an average in any mathematical sense.

   Astronomers have used the notion of "tropical year" for centuries, and
   its definition has been refined correspondingly. Meeus and Savoie give
   an easily readable survey at
   [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1992JBAA..102...40M
    &db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=]

   The most exact definition was applied in 1955 when the "tropical year"
   was used to define the ephemeris second. For that occasion, the tropical
   year was taken as
       (2 pi rad)/( angular speed of the geometric mean longitude
                    of the Sun with respect to the mean equinox on the
                    ecliptic of date )
   where this angular speed is measured relative to ephemeris time (ET).
   This tropical year changes with time; the value used for the definition
   of the ephemeris second was the one when ET was 1899 December 31
   + 12 h (noon) exactly.

   Some terms in this definition merit an explanation:

   "mean longitude" is not an average in any sense but the
   "secular" part of the longitude of the Sun. In order to define this
   precisely, one needs a theory of the movement of the Sun (giving
   the difference between the observable positions of the Sun and
   the mean Sun); Newcomb's theory was used in 1955.

   The series expansion of the geometric longitude that is used in
   such theories is a sum of the following types of terms:
   -  secular terms, ie, a polynomial function of ET;
   -  periodic terms, ie, products of sines (and cosines) of
      angles that are linear functions of ET;
   -  other Poisson terms, ie, products of terms of the preceding two
      types.
   The last kind of terms represents periodic summands with a varying
   amplitude -- these would not cancel by taking averages. Also,
   some of the strictly periodic terms have long periods (even longer
   than the interval of validity of the ephemeris) -- they would not
   average out either. Thus, the secular part is not an average in
   the mathematical sense but just the part that does not involve any
   periodic functions. It is in this sense that the tropical year
   gives the long term trend in the longitude of the Sun.

   "geometric longitude" refers to the longitude of a theoretical point
   on the mean ecliptic that is obtained by subtracting the yearly
   aberration, as computed with a nominal value of 20.47 arcs for the
   aberration constant. For modern, relativistic dynamical thoeries of
   the solar system, "geometric longitude" does not make much sense;
   but the effect of switching to geocentric longitude should be
   negligible on the value of the tropical year.

   The "mean equinox" is a nominal point on the celestial sphere that
   approximates the secular movement of the equinox (it is not an average
   either). The "mean equinox of date" is its position at the instant
   of observation (rather than at a standard epoch, as common in
   numerical ephemerides). The definition of the ecliptic and the mean
   equinox changed in 1984. It probably will be changed again in the
   near future. (Some people say "mean mean longitude" for "mean longitude
   referred to the mean equinox".)

   A tropical year as used in modern astronomy:

      -  represents the instantaneous angular speed of a
         fictituous point that moves on the ecliptic with a speed that
         is a polynomial function (ie, without periodic components) of
         the time scale that is taken as the basis of the ephemeris (ET
         or TDB or Teph).

      -  is not defined as any average time interval between two
         solar phenomena.

      -  has nothing to do with the declination of the Sun ("crossing
         the celestial equator") but only with the Sun's ecliptical
         longitude

      -  depends to a certain degree on astronomical conventions
         (mean equinox, choice of timescale) and on an analytical
         theory of the motion of the Sun. For subsecond precision,
         these dependencies become relevant.

   Michael Deckers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Amos Shapir
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
What you don't seem to understand, is that in an inertial frame -- in which
it can be assumed that
the ellipse of the Earth's orbit is fixed -- there is no such thing as *the*
equinox point.  An equinox
occurs when the Earth's axis is perpendicular to the Sun-Earth line; because
of precession, if you
extend this line towards the Zodiac, it will point to a different point each
year, and that difference
depends on where on the ellipse it happens.

BTW, an equinox can be called either Spring (Northwards) or Autumn
(Southward); I don't know
what you mean by "Eastern".

And another point: if you insist on calling anything you don't understand or
agree with "nonsense"
or "delusion", you're well on your way to Aristeanism...


>From: Mikhail Petin <[hidden email]>
>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:57:31 +0300
>
>>I offer 2 postulate for the beginning:
>
>- day (day + night) - mean duration of a revolution of the Earth around the
>its axis
>during the annual moving of Sun along the ecliptic,
>- solar year (tropical) = 365,242195 days - mean duration of the time
>interval
>between two consecutive passages of the centre of the Sun, for example,
>through the
>Eastern equinox point,
>

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Mikhail Petin
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
Dear Amos and Calendar People,

AMOS SAYS:
BTW, an equinox can be called either Spring (Northwards)
or Autumn (Southward); I don't know what you mean by "Eastern"..

.. And another point: if you insist on calling anything
you don't understand or agree with "nonsense" or "delusion",
you're well on your way to Aristeanism...

MIKHAIL SAYS:
The Eastern equinox is a point of intersection of the ecliptic
Plane with the plane of a Earth.s equator.
The Eastern equinox is always to the right of
the projection N-S line if see from a North Pole of the Earth.
    Had Aristeo already said about this?


>From: Mikhail Petin <[hidden email]>
>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:57:31 +0300
>
>> I am offering 2 postulates:
>
>- day (day + night) - mean duration of a revolution
of the Earth around the its axis during the annual moving
of Sun along the ecliptic,

>- solar year (tropical) = 365,242195 days - mean duration
of the time interval between two consecutive passages
of the centre of the Sun, for example,
through the Eastern equinox point,
>

Best regards
Mikhail Petin
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/Bible.htm 
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://Petin1Mikhail.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://NewWorldCalendar.narod.ru/index.htm



 



> Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>:

> What you don't seem to understand, is that in an inertial frame -- in which
> it can be assumed that
> the ellipse of the Earth's orbit is fixed -- there is no such thing as
> *the*
> equinox point.  An equinox
> occurs when the Earth's axis is perpendicular to the Sun-Earth line;
> because
> of precession, if you
> extend this line towards the Zodiac, it will point to a different point
> each
> year, and that difference
> depends on where on the ellipse it happens.
>
> BTW, an equinox can be called either Spring (Northwards) or Autumn
> (Southward); I don't know
> what you mean by "Eastern".
>
> And another point: if you insist on calling anything you don't understand
> or
> agree with "nonsense"
> or "delusion", you're well on your way to Aristeanism...
>
>
> >From: Mikhail Petin <[hidden email]>
> >Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:57:31 +0300
> >
> >>I offer 2 postulate for the beginning:
> >
> >- day (day + night) - mean duration of a revolution of the Earth around
> the
> >its axis
> >during the annual moving of Sun along the ecliptic,
> >- solar year (tropical) = 365,242195 days - mean duration of the time
> >interval
> >between two consecutive passages of the centre of the Sun, for example,
> >through the
> >Eastern equinox point,
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>



Best regards
Mikhail Petin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

VictorEngel
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
> AMOS SAYS:
> BTW, an equinox can be called either Spring (Northwards)
> or Autumn (Southward); I don't know what you mean by "Eastern"..
>
> .. And another point: if you insist on calling anything
> you don't understand or agree with "nonsense" or "delusion",
> you're well on your way to Aristeanism...
>
> MIKHAIL SAYS:
> The Eastern equinox is a point of intersection of the ecliptic
> Plane with the plane of a Earth.s equator.
> The Eastern equinox is always to the right of
> the projection N-S line if see from a North Pole of the Earth.

I'm having trouble visualizing this. I have no trouble with the intersection
of the ecliptic with the plance of Earth's equator. But, if you are on the
North Pole, which way is right? The answer depends upon which direction you
are looking. Also, if you're on the North Pole, aren't you also on the
"projection N-S line"? If not, what do you mean by that?

Victor
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Amos Shapir
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
But there is no single "point of intersection"!  Two (non parallel) planes
always intersect along a line, and this line intersects the earth's surface
at the equator on two points, one on the right and the other on the left (or
East and West, or front and rear, depending on where you are looking from).


>From: Mikhail Petin <[hidden email]>

>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:39:17 +0300
>
>Dear Amos and Calendar People,
>
>AMOS SAYS:
>BTW, an equinox can be called either Spring (Northwards)
>or Autumn (Southward); I don't know what you mean by "Eastern"..
>
>.. And another point: if you insist on calling anything
>you don't understand or agree with "nonsense" or "delusion",
>you're well on your way to Aristeanism...
>
>MIKHAIL SAYS:
>The Eastern equinox is a point of intersection of the ecliptic
>Plane with the plane of a Earth.s equator.
>The Eastern equinox is always to the right of
>the projection N-S line if see from a North Pole of the Earth.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
Dear Amos, Mikhail and Calendar People

Actually Shriramana and I had a considerable discussion on CALNDR-L over Easter/Western Equinox etc stating from 15 March 2005.
We eventually agreed that any naming of the equinoxes Eastern or Western is in fact hemisphere biased, thereby being no better than Spring/Autumn Equinox.

I show after the note to which I'm replying an early note from this thread.
Mikhail was involved in the discussion at this early stage.

Karl

07(17(30

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Amos Shapir
Sent: 27 February 2006 16:30
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: The New World Calendar


But there is no single "point of intersection"!  Two (non parallel) planes
always intersect along a line, and this line intersects the earth's surface
at the equator on two points, one on the right and the other on the left (or
East and West, or front and rear, depending on where you are looking from).


>From: Mikhail Petin <[hidden email]>

>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:39:17 +0300
>
>Dear Amos and Calendar People,
>
>AMOS SAYS:
>BTW, an equinox can be called either Spring (Northwards)
>or Autumn (Southward); I don't know what you mean by "Eastern"..
>
>.. And another point: if you insist on calling anything
>you don't understand or agree with "nonsense" or "delusion",
>you're well on your way to Aristeanism...
>
>MIKHAIL SAYS:
>The Eastern equinox is a point of intersection of the ecliptic
>Plane with the plane of a Earth.s equator.
>The Eastern equinox is always to the right of
>the projection N-S line if see from a North Pole of the Earth.

----------- Note of 15 March 2005 -------

Dear Mikhail, Shriramana and Calendar People

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Mikhail Petin
Sent: 12 March 2005 13:26
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Western (Eastern) equinox??!


Dear Shriramana, Karl and Calendar People,

KARL SAYS:
 > > On the Arctic circle, the horizontal ecliptic
would have the  March equinox due East (sun moves
leftwards on the ecliptic).
 This suggests calling it the Eastern equinox. On the
Antarctic circle, the horizontal ecliptic would have
the March equinox due West (sun moves rightwards on
the ecliptic). This suggests calling it the Western
equinox.
> >
I SAY:
Excuse me for my misprints in previous message. It is
necessary to read the textby the following way:
 The Sun during the year moves against clock hand
on ecliptic if we see from the Pole-star.
 Therefore, the March equinox will be the Eastern
equinox and the September equinox will be the Western
equinox on Arctic and Antarctic circles.

KARL SAYS:
Mikhail is almost correct, except that it does not apply to the Antarctic circle.
The Pole-star (which I took to be the north Pole-star) CANNOT be seen at the Antarctic circle.

The reason why I said Mikhail was almost correct is because the (north) Pole-star is not the relevant star. The relevant star is situated about 23.5 degrees away from the Pole-star and exactly 90 degrees from the ecliptic (not the equator). This makes no difference at either of the polar circles or anywhere else that is not tropical.

Karl

07(06(05


> > Shriramana Sharma <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Palmen, KEV (Karl) wrote:
> >
> > > On the Arctic circle, the horizontal ecliptic
would have the March equinox due East (sun moves
leftwards on the ecliptic). This suggests calling it
the Eastern equinox. On the  Antarctic circle, the
horizontal ecliptic would have the March equinox due
West (sun moves rightwards on the ecliptic). This
suggests calling it the  Western quinox.
> >
> > Actually Petin names the two the other way round.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 2005-03-06-Sym454 UTC+0530
> > http://samvit.org/calendar
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Mikhail Petin
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
Dear Michael and Calendar People,

MICHAEL SAYS:
A tropical year is not defined as an average in modern astronomy,
nor does it seem to be an average in any mathematical sense.

MIKHAIL SAYS:
It is necessary to correct quickly.  

MICHAEL SAYS:
   Astronomers have used the notion of "tropical year" for centuries, and
   its definition has been refined correspondingly. Meeus and Savoie give
   an easily readable survey at
   [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1992JBAA..102...40M
    &amp;db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format=]

MIKHAIL SAYS:
I don.t see the refined definition of .tropical year..

MICHAEL SAYS:
   The most exact definition was applied in 1955 when the "tropical year"
   was used to define the ephemeris second. For that occasion, the tropical
   year was taken as
       (2 pi rad)/( angular speed of the geometric mean longitude
                    of the Sun with respect to the mean equinox on the
                    ecliptic of date )
   where this angular speed is measured relative to ephemeris time (ET).
   This tropical year changes with time; the value used for the definition
   of the ephemeris second was the one when ET was 1899 December 31
   + 12 h (noon) exactly.

MIKHAIL SAYS:
Formula:  
    (2 pi rad)/( angular speed of the geometric mean longitude
                 of the Sun with respect to the mean equinox
                 on the ecliptic of date )
shows that was measured the time interval between two consecutive
passages of the centre of the Sun through the Eastern equinox point
(t=365,242195 days, i.e. a tropical year, which is equal to
a tropical years in any other points of an ecliptic).
   After this was defined a MEAN angular speed of the geometric
mean longitude of the Sun with respect to the mean equinox
on the ecliptic of date.
   It is understood.
 

MICHAEL SAYS:
   A tropical year as used in modern astronomy:
      -  represents the instantaneous angular speed of a
         fictituous point that moves on the ecliptic with a speed that
         is a polynomial function (ie, without periodic components) of
         the time scale that is taken as the basis of the ephemeris (ET
         or TDB or Teph)..

MIKHAIL SAYS:
The value 365,242195 days can.t represent the instantaneous angular speed
of a fictituous point. This is a time.

MICHAEL SAYS:
      -  is not defined as any average time interval between two
         solar phenomena.

      -  has nothing to do with the declination of the Sun ("crossing
         the celestial equator") but only with the Sun's ecliptical
         longitude

      -  depends to a certain degree on astronomical conventions
         (mean equinox, choice of timescale) and on an analytical
         theory of the motion of the Sun. For subsecond precision,
         these dependencies become relevant.

MIKHAIL SAYS:
The last indention need in details
   
Best regards
Mikhail Petin
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/Bible.htm 
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://Petin1Mikhail.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://NewWorldCalendar.narod.ru/index.htm
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Mikhail Petin
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
Dear Victor and Calendar people,

VICTOR SAYS:
I'm having trouble visualizing this. I have no trouble
with the intersection of the ecliptic with the plane
of Earth's equator. But, if you are on the North Pole,
which way is right?
The answer depends upon which direction you
are looking. Also, if you're on the North Pole,
aren't you also on the "projection N-S line"?
If not, what do you mean by that?

MIKHAIL SAYS:
It is necessary to project an the Earth.s axis
on the ecliptic plane and do a perpendicular
to N-S line.

AMOS SAYS:

> BTW, an equinox can be called either Spring (Northwards)
> or Autumn (Southward); I don't know what you mean by "Eastern"..
>
> .. And another point: if you insist on calling anything
> you don't understand or agree with "nonsense" or "delusion",
> you're well on your way to Aristeanism...
>
> MIKHAIL SAYS:
> The Eastern equinox is a point of intersection of the ecliptic
> plane with the plane of a Earth.s equator.
> The Eastern equinox is always to the right of
> the projection N-S line if see from a North Pole of the Earth.

Best regards
Mikhail Petin
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/Bible.htm 
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://Petin1Mikhail.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://NewWorldCalendar.narod.ru/index.htm
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Sepp Rothwangl
In reply to this post by Deckers, Michael

Am 27.02.2006 um 11:49 schrieb Michael Deckers:

>    On 2006-02-24, Sepp Rothwangl wrote:
>
>>  I miss the word AVERAGE in the length of the year ...
>
>    A tropical year is not defined as an average in modern astronomy,  
> nor
>    does it seem to be an average in any mathematical sense.

Michael,
OK! You can determine a year with many different values and to many  
aims.
Briefly: Calendrically it is determined by the secular average days and  
no more by seconds.

Astronomically you can determine it by angular expansion and no days

Temporally by atomic seconds or by the beats of a pulsar ...

Servus
Sepp

>
>    Astronomers have used the notion of "tropical year" for centuries,  
> and
>    its definition has been refined correspondingly. Meeus and Savoie  
> give
>    an easily readable survey at
>    
> [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?
> bibcode=1992JBAA..102...40M
>     &amp;db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format=]
>
>    The most exact definition was applied in 1955 when the "tropical  
> year"
>    was used to define the ephemeris second. For that occasion, the  
> tropical
>    year was taken as
>        (2 pi rad)/( angular speed of the geometric mean longitude
>                     of the Sun with respect to the mean equinox on the
>                     ecliptic of date )
>    where this angular speed is measured relative to ephemeris time  
> (ET).
>    This tropical year changes with time; the value used for the  
> definition
>    of the ephemeris second was the one when ET was 1899 December 31
>    + 12 h (noon) exactly.
>
>    Some terms in this definition merit an explanation:
>
>    "mean longitude" is not an average in any sense but the
>    "secular" part of the longitude of the Sun. In order to define this
>    precisely, one needs a theory of the movement of the Sun (giving
>    the difference between the observable positions of the Sun and
>    the mean Sun); Newcomb's theory was used in 1955.
>
>    The series expansion of the geometric longitude that is used in
>    such theories is a sum of the following types of terms:
>    -  secular terms, ie, a polynomial function of ET;
>    -  periodic terms, ie, products of sines (and cosines) of
>       angles that are linear functions of ET;
>    -  other Poisson terms, ie, products of terms of the preceding two
>       types.
>    The last kind of terms represents periodic summands with a varying
>    amplitude -- these would not cancel by taking averages. Also,
>    some of the strictly periodic terms have long periods (even longer
>    than the interval of validity of the ephemeris) -- they would not
>    average out either. Thus, the secular part is not an average in
>    the mathematical sense but just the part that does not involve any
>    periodic functions. It is in this sense that the tropical year
>    gives the long term trend in the longitude of the Sun.
>
>    "geometric longitude" refers to the longitude of a theoretical point
>    on the mean ecliptic that is obtained by subtracting the yearly
>    aberration, as computed with a nominal value of 20.47 arcs for the
>    aberration constant. For modern, relativistic dynamical thoeries of
>    the solar system, "geometric longitude" does not make much sense;
>    but the effect of switching to geocentric longitude should be
>    negligible on the value of the tropical year.
>
>    The "mean equinox" is a nominal point on the celestial sphere that
>    approximates the secular movement of the equinox (it is not an  
> average
>    either). The "mean equinox of date" is its position at the instant
>    of observation (rather than at a standard epoch, as common in
>    numerical ephemerides). The definition of the ecliptic and the mean
>    equinox changed in 1984. It probably will be changed again in the
>    near future. (Some people say "mean mean longitude" for "mean  
> longitude
>    referred to the mean equinox".)
>
>    A tropical year as used in modern astronomy:
>
>       -  represents the instantaneous angular speed of a
>          fictituous point that moves on the ecliptic with a speed that
>          is a polynomial function (ie, without periodic components) of
>          the time scale that is taken as the basis of the ephemeris (ET
>          or TDB or Teph).
>
>       -  is not defined as any average time interval between two
>          solar phenomena.
>
>       -  has nothing to do with the declination of the Sun ("crossing
>          the celestial equator") but only with the Sun's ecliptical
>          longitude
>
>       -  depends to a certain degree on astronomical conventions
>          (mean equinox, choice of timescale) and on an analytical
>          theory of the motion of the Sun. For subsecond precision,
>          these dependencies become relevant.
>
>    Michael Deckers
>
>
Sepp Rothwangl

www.calendersign.com
Y -669; CEP - 244368

=======================
Anno-Domini-hoax 2006

Since we should state not only the truth,
but also the cause of error...
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VII 14
*********************************
Why organize the world's timekeeping by religious superstition?
The web-net is the best device to catch the ICHTHYS:

I.WWW.WWW.WWI=======================
I.W <')/I/H/S/)<< W.I
I.WWW.WWW.WWI

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

VictorEngel
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
Dear Mikhail,

OK. So what we're really looking at, then, is the plane of the ecliptic. We
project Earth's axis down to this plane and view this shadow to see which
way the shadow is pointing. Right? Are we viwing the shadow from the north
or from the south?

Victor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Mikhail Petin
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:12 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: The New World Calendar
>
>
> Dear Victor and Calendar people,
>
> VICTOR SAYS:
> I'm having trouble visualizing this. I have no trouble
> with the intersection of the ecliptic with the plane
> of Earth's equator. But, if you are on the North Pole,
> which way is right?
> The answer depends upon which direction you
> are looking. Also, if you're on the North Pole,
> aren't you also on the "projection N-S line"?
> If not, what do you mean by that?
>
> MIKHAIL SAYS:
> It is necessary to project an the Earth.s axis
> on the ecliptic plane and do a perpendicular
> to N-S line.
>
> AMOS SAYS:
> > BTW, an equinox can be called either Spring (Northwards)
> > or Autumn (Southward); I don't know what you mean by "Eastern"..
> >
> > .. And another point: if you insist on calling anything
> > you don't understand or agree with "nonsense" or "delusion",
> > you're well on your way to Aristeanism...
> >
> > MIKHAIL SAYS:
> > The Eastern equinox is a point of intersection of the ecliptic
> > plane with the plane of a Earth.s equator.
> > The Eastern equinox is always to the right of
> > the projection N-S line if see from a North Pole of the Earth.
>
> Best regards
> Mikhail Petin
> http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/Bible.htm 
> http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/index.htm 
> http://Petin1Mikhail.narod.ru/index.htm 
> http://NewWorldCalendar.narod.ru/index.htm
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Mikhail Petin
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
Dear  Victor,

If look at the ecliptic plane from a South Pole
of the Earth then the directions of revolutions and lines
will be contrary (opposed).

Best regards
Mikhail Petin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Deckers, Michael
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
   On 2006-02-27, Mikhail Petin wrote:

>  MICHAEL SAYS:
>  A tropical year is not defined as an average in modern astronomy,
>  nor does it seem to be an average in any mathematical sense.
>  
>  MIKHAIL SAYS:
>  It is necessary to correct quickly.

   It is the task of astronomers to define their notions as they
   need them. For the background and rationale of these definitions
   you may consult a textbook on spherical astronomy or on celestial
   mechanics. It does not help communication (except for Humpty Dumpty)
   if everybody uses their private definitions.

>  MICHAEL SAYS:
>  ............................................. Meeus and Savoie give
>  an easily readable survey at
>  [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1992JBAA..102...40M
>   &amp;db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format=]
>
>  MIKHAIL SAYS:
>  I don't see the refined definition of "tropical year".

   Meeus and Savoie describe in detail how Hipparcos, Copernicus, and
   Leverrier (among others) determined the tropical year. These methods
   measure different things, and therefore correspond to different
   definitions of "tropical year".

>  MIKHAIL SAYS:
>  Formula:
>      (2 pi rad)/( angular speed of the geometric mean longitude
>                   of the Sun with respect to the mean equinox
>                   on the ecliptic of date )
>  shows that was measured the time interval between two consecutive
>  passages of the centre of the Sun through the Eastern equinox point
>  (t=365,242195 days, i.e. a tropical year, which is equal to
>  a tropical years in any other points of an ecliptic).

   You seem to misunderstand. Speed (angular or any other) has
   nothing to do with a time interval. You can drive 55 miles per hour
   without driving for an hour. Taking the derivative to determine
   instantaneous angular speed is described in the article cited above.
 
>  After this was defined a MEAN angular speed of the geometric
>  mean longitude of the Sun with respect to the mean equinox
>  on the ecliptic of date.

   No, not a "mean" speed of geometric longitude is meant; the
   instantaneous speed of mean geometric longitude is meant.
   (Actually, taking the derivative does commmute with dropping
   the non-secular terms of a series, but it does not commute with
   taking an average in whatever sense -- but that is probably too
   much math for the occasion.)

>  MIKHAIL SAYS:
>  The value 365,242195 days can't represent the instantaneous angular speed
>  of a fictituous point. This is a time.

   It is a time all right, and it also represents a speed -- in the same
   way as the fact that a car needs 60 seconds per kilometer can represent
   an instantaneous speed.

   Michael Deckers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Deckers, Michael
In reply to this post by Sepp Rothwangl
   On 2006-02-27, Sepp Rothwangl wrote:

>  OK! You can determine a year with many different values and to many
>  aims.
>  Briefly: Calendrically it is determined by the secular average days
>  and no more by seconds.
>
>  Astronomically you can determine it by angular expansion and no days
>  Temporally by atomic seconds or by the beats of a pulsar ...

   This is not a question of time units (day or second or Julian year)
   but a question of timescale. If you determine the angular speed of
   longitude you take the first derivative with respect to a timescale.
   There are many different timescales in astronomy to choose from, and
   all are measured and denoted with standard time units (s, d, min, h)
   and the standard date notations (Gregorian calendar, Julian date, MJD).
   You probably want to allude to the choice of timescale, not time unit.

   For the definition of the tropical year, ephemeris time (ET) was used
   until it was abolished in 1984. The successor of ET was meant to be
   TDB ("barycentric dynamical time", which also has been abolished in
   the meantime) and properly is Teph, the timescale used in the numerical
   integration of modern ephemerides. However, Teph is not a coordinate
   timescale in the sense of physics, nor is it a proper timescale. The
   timescales TAI (proper time on the geoid) and TT (a scaled form of a
   coordinate timescale) agree very well with ET over long ranges, so
   that both can substitute ET in the definition of the tropical year.
   An easy introduction into the maze of astronomical timekeeping is in
   chapter 2 of [aa.usno.navy.mil/kaplan/Circular.pdf].

   Of course, for civil time (which is based on UTC), the angular speed
   should be taken relative to UT1 (universal time, the modern form of
   mean solar time). Actually, scientists are currently reconsidering
   the definition of UTC -- the proposal is to make it a proper timescale
   (TAI minus an offset of some 33 plus seconds). If this is adopted,
   the target values (eg, synodic month/calendar day) for calendars
   intended to represent astronomical phenomena would change.

   Michael Deckers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The New World Calendar

Mikhail Petin
In reply to this post by Mikhail Petin
Dear Michael and Calendar People,

>  MICHAEL SAYS:
>  A tropical year is not defined as an average in modern astronomy,
>  nor does it seem to be an average in any mathematical sense.
>  
>  MIKHAIL SAYS:
>  It is necessary to correct quickly.

MICHAEL SAYS:  
It is the task of astronomers to define their notions as they
need them. For the background and rationale of these definitions
you may consult a textbook on spherical astronomy or on celestial
mechanics. It does not help communication (except for Humpty Dumpty)
if everybody uses their private definitions.

MIKHAIL SAYS:
Thanks.
As I am basing solely on a textbook on spherical astronomy or
on celestial mechanics I recommend you these textbooks too
(without fall - SI System International, 1960)
instead of your Humpty Dumpty and your private definitions
mentioned below

>  The value 365,242195 days can't represent the instantaneous
>  angular speed of a fictituous point. This is a time.

MICHAEL SAYS:  
It is a time all right, and it also represents a speed .
in the same way as the fact that a car needs 60 seconds
per kilometer can represent an instantaneous speed.

MIKHAIL SAYS:
This is wrong (Humpty Dumpty).
The instantaneous angular speed in given time moment is
a function of time t, not a function (t, t+Dt).
The instantaneous angular speed in given time moment is
an abstraction because the mean angular speed may be measured only,
but not the instantaneous angular speed.

For information (from a textbook on spherical astronomy or on celestial
mechanics):

- solar year (tropical) = 365,242190 days -
mean duration of the time interval between
two consecutive passages of the centre of the Sun,
for example, through the Eastern equinox point,


Year        Duration,ephemeris Change for 100 year,
                 days (1950,0 г.)       days
Star        365,256360    +0,11.10-6
Тропический 365,242196   - 6,16.10-6
Anomalist 365.259641   + 3,04.10-6
Draconist 346,620047     + 32.10-6
Lunar(12months) 354,3670    - 2,4.10-6
Julian   365,25                .
Gregorian 365,2425        .
(mean duration)

Best regards
Mikhail Petin
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/Bible.htm 
http://WorldCalendarPetin.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://Petin1Mikhail.narod.ru/index.htm 
http://NewWorldCalendar.narod.ru/index.htm
12345