Some whimsical calendar musings
Today is an auspicious day of the year for us southern-hemisphere dwellers. As I write this, it is just minutes after the September equinox (which is our spring equinox). I was reminded of the date yesterday while driving home shortly before sunset. The streets in my city are mostly aligned with the four cardinal points of the compass. I was driving westward and the sun was setting right in my eyes. I felt a distinct sense of excitement and gladness at the imminent arrival of this long-awaited and eagerly anticipated astronomical event, and I could actually feel, in a viscerally insightful way, why the ancient peoples of the northern hemisphere celebrated their equivalent of today (the March equinox) as the 'birthday' of the Sun. Coincidentally, it is also approaching that one time of year in the Jewish calendar, when molad calculations become important. A molad is a fixed, calendric approximation of a mean New Moon. They occur at fixed intervals of 29.5 days, 44 minutes and one part (P) (where P = 1/1080th hour or 1/18th minute). This interval is very close to the Moon's mean synodic period. The "part" (ḥelek in Hebrew) is a Jewish unit of time borrowed from the ancient Babylonians. A few days ago, I noticed an interesting correlation between that time unit and C (the (top) speed of light). It came to my attention when, in a whimsical moment, I was calculating what my top walking speed is as a fraction of C. (It is 0.000 000 0055C, using the true value of C in km/s.) I'll let you discover the correlation yourselves. Try calculating C in units of km/P, using the oft-given, rounded value of C. |
Sirs: I wonder if Moongazer and friends of Calndr-L have glanced at my base contribution: The Metric Second (ISI Bulln., 1973 April) published by Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. It is a good idea to find means & ways 'how not to reconcile to a legitimate idea - forcing it to a Natural Death'. Later during my discussions with Calndr-L I had pointed the relation of my (216 x 5)=1080 and the span of 25920-years =[(896*29)-64] i.e. (25984-64)-years? Velocity of light at km/sec had also been pointed 'commenting on the speed of light experimented by Dr Kennth M. Evanson, if I recall correctly! Brij Bhushan Vij Tuesday, 2016 September 20H14:51(decimal) ISTFrom: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List <[hidden email]> on behalf of Moongazer <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 9:31 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: The speed of light in km/part Some whimsical calendar musings
Today is an auspicious day of the year for us southern-hemisphere dwellers. As I write this, it is just minutes after the September equinox (which is our spring equinox). I was reminded of the date yesterday while driving home shortly before sunset. The streets in my city are mostly aligned with the four cardinal points of the compass. I was driving westward and the sun was setting right in my eyes. I felt a distinct sense of excitement and gladness at the imminent arrival of this long-awaited and eagerly anticipated astronomical event, and I could actually feel, in a viscerally insightful way, why the ancient peoples of the northern hemisphere celebrated their equivalent of today (the March equinox) as the 'birthday' of the Sun. Coincidentally, it is also approaching that one time of year in the Jewish calendar, when molad calculations become important. A molad is a fixed, calendric approximation of a mean New Moon. They occur at fixed intervals of 29.5 days, 44 minutes and one part (P) (where P = 1/1080th hour or 1/18th minute). This interval is very close to the Moon's mean synodic period. The "part" (ḥelek in Hebrew) is a Jewish unit of time borrowed from the ancient Babylonians. A few days ago, I noticed an interesting correlation between that time unit and C (the (top) speed of light). It came to my attention when, in a whimsical moment, I was calculating what my top walking speed is as a fraction of C. (It is 0.000 000 0055C, using the true value of C in km/s.) I'll let you discover the correlation yourselves. Try calculating C in units of km/P, using the oft-given, rounded value of C. -- View this message in context: http://calndr-l.10958.n7.nabble.com/The-speed-of-light-in-km-part-tp17148.html
Sent from the Calndr-L mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
In reply to this post by Moongazer
Dear Moongazer and Calendar People
Sorry Moongazer, the equinox is still to occur (Thursday, September 22, 14:21 UT). I've already mentioned that the coming Hebrew Year will start with the same moon as an Islamic year and this will also apply to the following two years. The molad interval is now a little too long but is still most accurate to the nearest 1/18 minute. The inaccuracy of the mean year is of greater concern and it causes the calendar to run a day late on average every 220 years or so. Irv Bromberg has suggested improvements to this. Finally about the speed of light. I've known that one light nanosecond is about one foot in imperial/U.S. measurements. How far would light go in 1/18 minute? I make it about a million kilometres. Karl 16(01(19 -----Original Message----- From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Moongazer Sent: 20 September 2016 05:32 To: [hidden email] Subject: The speed of light in km/part Some whimsical calendar musings Today is an auspicious day of the year for us southern-hemisphere dwellers. As I write this, it is just minutes after the September equinox (which is our spring equinox). I was reminded of the date yesterday while driving home shortly before sunset. The streets in my city are mostly aligned with the four cardinal points of the compass. I was driving westward and the sun was setting right in my eyes. I felt a distinct sense of excitement and gladness at the imminent arrival of this long-awaited and eagerly anticipated astronomical event, and I could actually feel, in a viscerally insightful way, why the ancient peoples of the northern hemisphere celebrated their equivalent of today (the March equinox) as the 'birthday' of the Sun. Coincidentally, it is also approaching that one time of year in the Jewish calendar, when molad calculations become important. A molad is a fixed, calendric approximation of a mean New Moon. They occur at fixed intervals of 29.5 days, 44 minutes and one part (P) (where P = 1/1080th hour or 1/18th minute). This interval is very close to the Moon's mean synodic period. The "part" (ḥelek in Hebrew) is a Jewish unit of time borrowed from the ancient Babylonians. A few days ago, I noticed an interesting correlation between that time unit and C (the (top) speed of light). It came to my attention when, in a whimsical moment, I was calculating what my top walking speed is as a fraction of C. (It is 0.000 000 0055C, using the true value of C in km/s.) I'll let you discover the correlation yourselves. Try calculating C in units of km/P, using the oft-given, rounded value of C. -- View this message in context: http://calndr-l.10958.n7.nabble.com/The-speed-of-light-in-km-part-tp17148.html Sent from the Calndr-L mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
In reply to this post by Moongazer
The equinox is still a couple days out I think. On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Moongazer <[hidden email]> wrote: Some whimsical calendar musings |
In reply to this post by Moongazer
Whoops! I looked at the wrong line in the table; it was the March equinox that occurred on the 20th. The Sep equinox is not until Sep 22 at 2:20 pm, GMT.
As for the speed of light (C) in kilometres per part (P), Karl got the correct answer, but his method did not reveal what I hoped it would: C = 299,792,458 m/s. In round numbers, it is 300,000,000 m/s, which = 1080 million km/hr. There are 1080 parts in 1 hour, Therefore the speed of light = 1 million km/P (Note the correlation of the values 1080.) |
Yes The speed of light is nearly one metric foot (30 centimeters) per nanosecond Walter Ziobro Sent from AOL Mobile Mail On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 Moongazer <[hidden email]> wrote: Whoops! I looked at the wrong line in the table; it was the March equinox that occurred on the 20th. The Sep equinox is not until Sep 22 at 2:20 pm, GMT. As for the speed of light (C) in kilometres per part (P), Karl got the correct answer, but his method did not reveal what I hoped it would: C = 299,792,458 m/s. In round numbers, it is 300,000,000 m/s, which = 1080 million km/hr. There are 1080 parts in 1 hour, Therefore the speed of light = 1 million km/P (Note the correlation of the values 1080.) -- View this message in context: http://calndr-l.10958.n7.nabble.com/The-speed-of-light-in-km-part-tp17148p17154.html Sent from the Calndr-L mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
In reply to this post by Moongazer
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Moongazer [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 09:50 As for the speed of light (C) in kilometres per part (P), Karl got the correct answer, but his method did not reveal what I hoped it would: C = 299,792,458 m/s. In round numbers, it is 300,000,000 m/s, which = 1080 million km/hr. There are 1080 parts in 1 hour, Therefore the speed of light = 1 million km/P (Note the correlation of the values 1080.) Irv adds: Today the speed of light in a vacuum is defined exactly and has 9 significant figures as given above by Moongazer. This speed of light rounded to only one significant figure = 300 million m/s. There are ^{10}/_{3} seconds per part, so we can multiply by above to obtain 300 million ^{m}/_{s} x ^{10}/_{3} ^{s}/_{p} = 1000 million ^{m}/_{p} = 1 billion ^{m}/_{p} = 1 million ^{km}/_{p} = 1000 ^{Mm}/_{p} = 1 ^{Gm}/_{p} This approximate relationship was always there, except that Moongazer only noticed it when he saw the 1080 million km/h. Of course, this can only mean one thing... We must re-define the length of the metre so that the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 300,000,000 m/s, and the part (p) must become a standard S.I. unit of time. |
Irv There is one alternative: the second can be redefined as the time that light travels in 300,000,000 meters Walter Ziobro Sent from AOL Mobile Mail On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 Irv Bromberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [CALNDR-L@...] on behalf of Moongazer [00000017433db9d3-dmarc-request@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 09:50 As for the speed of light (C) in kilometres per part (P), Karl got the correct answer, but his method did not reveal what I hoped it would: C = 299,792,458 m/s. In round numbers, it is 300,000,000 m/s, which = 1080 million km/hr. There are 1080 parts in 1 hour, Therefore the speed of light = 1 million km/P (Note the correlation of the values 1080.) Irv adds: Today the speed of light in a vacuum is defined exactly and has 9 significant figures as given above by Moongazer. This speed of light rounded to only one significant figure = 300 million m/s. There are ^{10}/_{3} seconds per part, so we can multiply by above to obtain 300 million ^{m}/_{s} x ^{10}/_{3} ^{s}/_{p} = 1000 million ^{m}/_{p} = 1 billion ^{m}/_{p} = 1 million ^{km}/_{p} = 1000 ^{Mm}/_{p} = 1 ^{Gm}/_{p} This approximate relationship was always there, except that Moongazer only noticed it when he saw the 1080 million km/h. Of course, this can only mean one thing... We must re-define the length of the metre so that the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 300,000,000 m/s, and the part (p) must become a standard S.I. unit of time. |
Re-defining the length of the second is a much bigger deal than redefining the length of the metre, as evidenced by the fact that the length of the metre was just recently redefined such that c = 299,792,458 m/s, and almost nobody blinked.
This is because seconds accumulate as time passes, so any change in the length of the second unavoidably would cause all time-keeping devices to drift. -- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada http://www.sym454.org/ There is one alternative: the second can be redefined as the time that light travels in 300,000,000 meters
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 Irv Bromberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [CALNDR-[hidden email]] on behalf of Moongazer [00000017433db9d3-dmarc-[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 09:50 As for the speed of light (C) in kilometres per part (P), Karl got the correct answer, but his method did not reveal what I hoped it would: C = 299,792,458 m/s. In round numbers, it is 300,000,000 m/s, which = 1080 million km/hr. There are 1080 parts in 1 hour, Therefore the speed of light = 1 million km/P (Note the correlation of the values 1080.) Irv adds: Today the speed of light in a vacuum is defined exactly and has 9 significant figures as given above by Moongazer. This speed of light rounded to only one significant figure = 300 million m/s. There are ^{10}/_{3} seconds per part, so we can multiply by above to obtain 300 million ^{m}/_{s} x ^{10}/_{3} ^{s}/_{p} = 1000 million ^{m}/_{p} = 1 billion ^{m}/_{p} = 1 million ^{km}/_{p} = 1000 ^{Mm}/_{p} = 1 ^{Gm}/_{p} This approximate relationship was always there, except that Moongazer only noticed it when he saw the 1080 million km/h. Of course, this can only mean one thing... We must re-define the length of the metre so that the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 300,000,000 m/s, and the part (p) must become a standard S.I. unit of time. |
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
Interestingly, if one enters any measure of time into the WolframAlpha.com on-line calculator, the results that it displays includes the distance that light travels during that interval. Hence for the part = 1/18 minute, see:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F18+minute -- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada http://www.sym454.org/hebrew/ |
In reply to this post by Irv Bromberg
On 2016-10-11 14:13, Irv Bromberg wrote:
> Re-defining the length of the second is a much bigger deal than redefining the length of the metre, as evidenced by the fact that the length of the metre was just recently redefined such that c = 299,792,458 m/s, and almost nobody blinked. Well, as recently as 1983. And nobody blinked when the second was last redefined in 1967. > This is because seconds accumulate as time passes, so any change in the length of the second unavoidably would cause all time-keeping devices to drift. Redefinitions of units happen when new measurement procedures allow more precise measurements than the unit can be reproduced with the old definition. The new definition is taken so that its value agrees with the most probable value under the old definition. Thus the old value is not changed, the new definition just reduces the uncertainty of that value. All former measurements and their uncertainties remain valid under the new definition. For instance, many electromagnetic quantities can currently be measured much more precisely (by several orders of magnitude) than the electromagnetic SI units are presently defined. This will be mended in 2018, when A, kg, K, and mol will all be redefined with the precision of modern measurement methods. All old measurements will remain valid (except for a few borderline cases such as extremely precise molar masses). Similarly, modern optical clocks can be compared much more precisely than Cs clocks (which are used in the current definition of the second). Hence it is only a question of time (sic) until the second will be redefined in terms of better clocks, without changing its length (but it will happen after 2018). Michael Deckers. |
And when will the calendar finally be redefined?
Am 11.10.2016 um 18:58 schrieb Michael H Deckers <[hidden email]>: On 2016-10-11 14:13, Irv Bromberg wrote:Re-defining the length of the second is a much bigger deal than redefining the length of the metre, as evidenced by the fact that the length of the metre was just recently redefined such that c = 299,792,458 m/s, and almost nobody blinked.Well, as recently as 1983. And nobody blinked |
Sepp <[hidden email]>:
> > And when will the calendar finally be redefined? Unlike BIPM/CGPM for SI (i.e. “the metric system”) , there is no universally recognized central authority for “the calendar”. The Catholic pope (as pontifex maximus), ISO and UNO would be the most likely candidates. |
In reply to this post by Michael H Deckers
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Michael H Deckers [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:58 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: The speed of light in km/part On 2016-10-11 14:13, Irv Bromberg wrote: > Re-defining the length of the second is a much bigger deal than redefining the length of the metre, as evidenced by the fact that the length of the metre was just recently redefined such that c = 299,792,458 m/s, and almost nobody blinked. Well, as recently as 1983. And nobody blinked when the second was last redefined in 1967. [Bromberg] The change in the length of the second was too tiny for anybody to notice. > This is because seconds accumulate as time passes, so any change in the length of the second unavoidably would cause all time-keeping devices to drift. Redefinitions of units happen when new measurement procedures allow more precise measurements than the unit can be reproduced with the old definition. The new definition is taken so that its value agrees with the most probable value under the old definition. Thus the old value is not changed, the new definition just reduces the uncertainty of that value. All former measurements and their uncertainties remain valid under the new definition. For instance, many electromagnetic quantities can currently be measured much more precisely (by several orders of magnitude) than the electromagnetic SI units are presently defined. This will be mended in 2018, when A, kg, K, and mol will all be redefined with the precision of modern measurement methods. All old measurements will remain valid (except for a few borderline cases such as extremely precise molar masses). Similarly, modern optical clocks can be compared much more precisely than Cs clocks (which are used in the current definition of the second). Hence it is only a question of time (sic) until the second will be redefined in terms of better clocks, without changing its length (but it will happen after 2018). [Bromberg] Agreed, but here Walter had proposed redefining the length of the second so that light would by definition travel exactly 300,000,000 metres per second without changing the length of the metre. That would make the second almost 0.07% longer than it is now (more than 692 ppm), which would be very noticeable on all time-keeping devices, given enough elapsed time. The re-definitions that Michael described above were refinements of measurements, not a shift well outside the existing uncertainty limits. |
In reply to this post by Irv Bromberg
Irv, Walter, calendar friends: >We must re-define the length of the metre so that the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 300,000,000 m/s, and the part >(p) must become a standard S.I. unit of time. As admitted, if the need to redefine 'length unit and or time unit are in vogue', why would it not be appropriate to link Arc-angle of the HOUR/Hour-angle, the concepts of "Metrication/Decimalisation of Time of the Hour in relation to arc-angle" is automatically
the part of Le Systeme Internationale d'Unites?
I have tried to demonstrate this through my discussions and at my Home Page:
http://www.brijvij.com/ . This is possible and only a review is desired.
1.001036957279807 day is 1
^{339}/_{326919
}day which is good BUT the exact fit in 896-years shall be 1
^{338}/_{326919} day =1.0010338952462230705465268155109
day x 326919 tithi (in 11082 lunation) is an EXACT fit in 896-years/327257 days/11082 lunar moons. This may need to 'consider the last moon' to over look ONE tithi of 11082^{nd}
lunar moon as *Ksha or omitted tithi* which compensates the EXTRA lunation over 29 cycle of 896-years. [Brij Bhushan Vij, Author]
However, Irv, Karl, Walter are better qualified to view, if my calculations presented to Calndr-L need correction. Additionally, my 896-year cycle is great for 'corrections of the past/future events' in Gregorian/Julian dates ONE DAY in 3200-years, as
suggested. [365.2425 - 365.2421875) = 0.0003125 day i.e. Exactly one day in 3200-years! This has already been proposed to calendar experts. This is my reason that I preferred 896-year cycle over *closer to actual Average Tropical Mean Year of
my 834-year cycle*, sirs.
>There are 1080 parts in 1 hour,
Division of the hour as 5X6x6x6=1080 units was also pointed during my communications with Calndr-L.
I thank you for considering.
Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij, Author <[hidden email]>
Monday, 2016 October 17 H12:43(decimal) IST
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List <[hidden email]> on behalf of Irv Bromberg <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:13 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: The speed of light in km/part
Re-defining the length of the second is a much bigger deal than redefining the length of the metre, as evidenced by the fact that the length of the metre was just recently redefined such that c = 299,792,458 m/s, and almost nobody blinked.
This is because seconds accumulate as time passes, so any change in the length of the second unavoidably would cause all time-keeping devices to drift. -- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada http://www.sym454.org/
There is one alternative: the second can be redefined as the time that light travels in 300,000,000 meters
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 Irv Bromberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [CALNDR-[hidden email]] on behalf of Moongazer [00000017433db9d3-dmarc-[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 09:50 As for the speed of light (C) in kilometres per part (P), Karl got the correct answer, but his method did not reveal what I hoped it would: C = 299,792,458 m/s. In round numbers, it is 300,000,000 m/s, which = 1080 million km/hr. There are 1080 parts in 1 hour, Therefore the speed of light = 1 million km/P (Note the correlation of the values 1080.) Irv adds: Today the speed of light in a vacuum is defined exactly and has 9 significant figures as given above by Moongazer. This speed of light rounded to only one significant figure = 300 million m/s. There are ^{10}/_{3} seconds per part, so we can multiply by above to obtain 300 million ^{m}/_{s} x ^{10}/_{3} ^{s}/_{p} = 1000 million ^{m}/_{p} = 1 billion ^{m}/_{p} = 1 million ^{km}/_{p} = 1000 ^{Mm}/_{p} = 1 ^{Gm}/_{p} This approximate relationship was always there, except that Moongazer only noticed it when he saw the 1080 million km/h. Of course, this can only mean one thing... We must re-define the length of the metre so that the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 300,000,000 m/s, and the part (p) must become a standard S.I. unit of time. |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |