They have nothing to do with Brij's idea of missing 3 tithis every 834-yearsWe both made a 'minor error'. I assumed the years you had multiplied. These are minor triffles & as I say *teething troubles*. You are an astronomer and have astronomy base. I have come a long way, with my calcuilations -right or wrong. My results are with you and Calndr-L for accepting or rejecting - for consideration of the Calendar reform (if and when approperiate).
from the Metonic cycle or Brij's approximation of 965 tithis (of 2/59
lunation) to 966 days. These two ideas are worthy of consideration and I've
done this in previous notes.
There may be better options that might have come your way. BUT mine is the THOUGHT that I developed,and nourished, over the years. I may not be able to draw expections of 'calendar people'. There has to be some BASE wherefrom we 'have to draw other results'. What are the base values that we want to work or establish 'results for calendar to come'.
From my accumulated information, I have used some data (where necessary toimprove upon). I did some calculations to convert this data for use as DECIMALISED HOURS, since *decimalisatuion of the Year, the day, the second* in some way have not found favour (among experts) to be linked with Arc-angle. The NEW aspect, I worked and propose is for 'decimalisation of the HOUR and linking it with decimalisation of Degree.
"DECIMALISED HOURS � Conversions (Astro data).
I have tried to 'compile information in areas of time measurement' as applicable in daily life; and/or the ease with which*count of time* can help man to understand 'passage or time flow'. The point, I wish to add here is that man has tried and came to 'stumbling block' on:
(1) decimalisation of the YEAR count, as in Bessilian year;
(2) decimalisation of the SECOND count, and its multiples and sub-multiples; for use in astronomy and
(3) decimalisation of the DAY count - as in The Metric Second/Calendar Year (1971-92).
Additionally, I have attempted and did some calculations in determining some known intervals of time in *decimalised HOURS (of our 24-hour clock)*, in showing the possibility to link with astronomical intervals/durations, such as:
Important Calendar Data:
Tropical Year length (Equinox to equinox) = 365d.242189669781 =8765.812552074744 Hours;
Sidereal Year (fixed Star to same star) = 365d.25636342592 =8766.15272222208 Hours;
Anomalistic Year (perigee to perigee) =365d.25963541666 =8766.23124999984 Hours;
Eclipse Period (node to node) = 346d.62007175925 =8750.881722222 Hours;
Tropical Moon (between equinoxes) = 27d.32158217592 = 655.71797222208 Hours;
Synodic/Lunation (between TWO moons) = 29d.5305881 =708.7341144 Hours;
Sidereal (wrt fixed star) = 27d.321662 =655.719888 Hours;
Anomalistic (perigee to perigee) = 27d.5545497 =661.3091928 Hours;
ONE tithi =2L/59th =59.0611762/59 =1.001036885 day (or 24.02488524 Hours)
966 Solar days = 965 �tithi or phases�; Ratio, 966/965 = 1.00103626943 (in 24.02487046632 hours)
849 solar days =839 �nakshatra or asterisms�; Ratio, 849/839 =1.0119189511323 (in 24.286054827 Hours);
One solar day = 1.0027379097 sidereal day (of 24.0657098328 Hours)
One sidereal day = 0.99726956598 solar day (of 23.93446958352 Hours)
Average transit of Earth per day =0.98564736 degree;
Average transit of Earth per degree =1.014561638 day (in 24.349479312 Hours); and
Number of Lunations per Year = 12.36826671 lunations
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
WHAT is wrong if TIME count is resorted to in decimalised hours? While, concepts of Day/Night, Week, Time of the Day, Years, Arc-angle and Lunations remain *UNCHANGED*. Is there any other proposal that is: compact, *easiest, surest and cheapest* with promising results, as I have placed before the group?
You have a right to reject these values, BUT you also have the RIGHT to improve upon these, for *humanity to reap fruits*.
Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20031212/00:39 AM(IST)
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda.
*****The New Calendar Rhyme*****
Thirty days in July, September:
April, June, November, December;
All the rest have thirty-one; accepting February alone:
Which hath but twenty-nine, to be (in) fine;
Till leap year gives the whole week READY:
Is it not time to MODIFY or change to make it perennial, Oh Daddy!
And make the calendar work with Leap Week Rule! ***** ***** ***** *****
From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Luni-Solar VGRCalendar Re: ...
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:12:10 -0000
Dear Brij and Calendar People
> -----Original Message----- > From: Brij Bhushan Vij [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 10 December 2003 19:14 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Luni-Solar VGRCalendar Re: Our Calendar Now and In the Future > >(a) 834-yr cycle with 148 LWks, > Mean Year =[7*(52+148/834)]=365.242206235012 days; OK.
> (b) 834-yr cycle (304612 days/10315 Lunation), Mean Lunation > =29.5309743093 > days. This is achieved, using 2L/59th =1.00103688475 day (for each > tithi/Phase) & close enough to ratio 966/965=1.00103626943 day. Using > 19-year Metonic cycle, *ONLY three tithi* need be omitted during years > 284th, 549th & 834th (or as felt necessary by astronomy experts);
304612 days actually have 10315.135.. lunations, which is nearly 4 days more
than 10315 lunations. This 4 day difference can not be ignored. Hence this
approximation is inaccurate and should not be used for 834 years.
Also I don't believe that using 19-year Metonic cycle, *ONLY three tithi* need be omitted during years 284th, 549th & 834th (or as felt necessary by astronomy experts), would give a whole number (such as 10315) lunations in 834 years this is because 834 is NOT a multiple of 19-year (hence I mentioned (c) ). We have 834*29.5*235/19 = 304300.263... tithis with the 19-year cycle. If we remove 3 tithis we get 304297.263... tithis, which is 10315.161... lunations. This gives a mean lunation of 304612/10315.161... = 29.530512 which I calculated before and is MORE ACCURATE than the 29.5309743093, which Brij calculated.
> (c) Over long periods: 19*834 =15864-years (5794202 > days/196208 Lunations); > value for Mean Lunation = 29.5309161706 day is achieved.
If Vij read my note properly he'd know that 15864 years is an error. It should be 15846 years. Brij acknowledges this error in a later note.
The only reason I used this period was to show that the 19-year cycle and 834-year cycle both repeat over this cycle. If the 19-year cycle is corrected, this repetition does not occur, unless the correction is by a whole number of lunations.
> These results are placed, before Calndr-L group, for comparative > examination/study with other calendars in use. I shall welcome any > improvement in my results.
These are inaccurate results arising from Brij rounding the number of
lunations for a period which is not really a whole number of lunations. They
are NOT worthy of consideration.
They have nothing to do with Brij's idea of missing 3 tithis every 834-years
from the Metonic cycle or Brij's approximation of 965 tithis (of 2/59
lunation) to 966 days. These two ideas are worthy of consideration and I've
done this in previous notes.
Karl
06(05(18
_________________________________________________________________
R K Laxman fan? Get the best of his cartoons. http://server1.msn.co.in/sp03/gprs/howcani_cartoons.asp Now on your mobile.
