|

Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle

View: New views

12 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

	Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle by Karl Palmen :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle Dear Helios, Victor and Calendar People Some time ago, I had worked out some lunisolar cycles that are a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year cycle. They are at http://www.the-light.com/cal/Lunisolar400.html of http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html . This list does not include the 5.7 million year cycle used for Easter, because it is so long. For relatively short cycles we have 13 Gregorian cycles with 280235 – 1599 = 64315 lunar months averaging 29.5306072 days 16 Gregorian cycles with 344235 – 1799 = 79157 lunar months averaging 29.5305785 days 29 Gregorian cycles with 624235 – 3299 = 143472 lunar months averaging 29.5305913 days 45 Gregorian cycles with 968235 – 4999 = 222629 lunar months averaging 29.5305868 days The cycle of 29 Gregorian cycles has exactly 8967 months per 725 years and the ratio 29/32 crops up. The cycle of 45 Gregorian cycles is very accurate to today’s mean synodic month and has a ratio of 45/49. The ratio of 29/32 or 45/49 is the number of Gregorian cycles per correction of the Metonic cycle by 1/19 month, which can be done by truncating on Metonic cycle by an Octaeteris of 8 years equated to 99 lunar months. For the Gregorian Lunisolar calendar the ratio is 750/817, which is about 0.918 and is equivalent to about one 1/19 month correction every 367.197 years. The cycle of 45 Gregorian cycles has about one such correction every 367.347 years and for the 29 Gregorian cycles, it is exactly one such correction every 362.5 years (half of 725 years). Karl 10(14(15 -- Scanned by iCritical.
	Re: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle by Karl Palmen :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. Dear Brij and Calendar People Brij should find that 334 and 353 years MUCH closer to a whole number of lunations. They are got by subtracting 8 years from a multiple of 19-year cycles, which achieves one 1/19 month correction of the 19-year cycle. Brij quoted me out of context. The ratio I refer to is the number of 400-year cycles per correction of the 19-year cycle. 399 years is equal to 21 nineteen-year cycles and so is about 2 days short of a whole number of lunations. Brij’s other approximations are also poor and tolerate an error up to 3 days. A good approximation will be of the form of 19M – 8T years approximated to 235M – 99T lunations, where M and T are integers and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18. The quantity T is the number of corrections of the 19-year cycle as I have described. The ratio I referred in the quote is equal to Years/(400T) and the number of years per correction is simple Years/T. Brij’s better approximations have M/T as follows 220 years = 1219 – 8 , so M=12, T=1, therefore M/T=12 850 years = 4610 – 38, so M=46, T=3, therefore M/T = 15.3333 In both cases M/T is a little too small. Also 896 years = 4819 – 28, so M=48, T=2, therefore M/T = 24 In this case M/T is a little too large. These are not complete lunisolar cycles, because they do not have a whole number of days. For complete lunisolar cycles, go to http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html . Karl 10(14(18 10(14(18 From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij Sent: 05 November 2009 01:17 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle Karl, CC sirs: >The ratio of 29/32 or 45/49 is the number of Gregorian cycles per correction of the Metonic cycle by 1/19 month, which can be >done by truncating on Metonic cycle by an Octaeteris of 8 years equated to 99 lunar months. For the Gregorian Lunisolar >calendar the ratio is 750/817, which is about 0.918 and is equivalent to about one 1/19 month correction every 367.197 years. >The cycle of 45 Gregorian cycles has about one such correction every 367.347 years and for the 29 Gregorian cycles, it is > >exactly one such correction every 362.5 years (half of 725 years). I show some lunation calculations, that Calndr-L would find interesting. SOME LUNISOLAR CALCULATIONS 1-YEAR =12.36826641079700841901364038531 lunation; 19-years =19.00023755915010653 lunation; 4935 lunation =399.00498874215 years 100 L =8.085207472 years 200 L =16.17041494396 years 300 L =24.255622416 years 400 L =32.34082989 years 500 L =40.42603735989 years 600 L =48.511244832 years 700 L =56.596452304 years 800 L =64.68165977583 years 900 L =72.7668672478 years 1000 L=80.85207472 years To me it would appear that 399-years cycle can fit the bill (4935 lunation). While several year cycles promise with NEAR complete lunation number, use can be made among these rather than adhere to several corrections during the cycle, as proposed. I place these below: 220-years =2721.0186104 lunation; 432-years =5343.0910895 lunation; 842-years =10414.08032 lunation; 850-yrs =10513.02645 lunation 880-yrs =10884.074442 lunation 6539 years =80876.09406 lunation My suggested cycles that I have persued since long & under discussion have been: 11082 lunation =896.002692 years; 834-years =10315.134187 lunation; and 1730-years =21397.100891 lunation, which can be aligned by an additional 'Tithi' during 7132nd , 14265th and 21397th lunation, using 547=235 lunation per 19-years. This added 'tithi' automatically gets compensated in 91730=15570-years, as 192574th lunation of the cycle. My working is placed at: http://www.brijvij.com/bb_13th-nvrafriday.Wiki-srch.pdf and http://www.brijvij.com/bb_harappaTithi-Cycles.pdf 19-years cycle can be made use of positively, since 19-years are closer to my 'tithi working' and 547=235 lunation. 896-years, 834-years & 1730-years can be formed from: [(4619)+(211)]=896-years; [(4119)+(511)]=834-years; and (9119)+1 =1730-years. The need, therefore, is for development of "software', sirs. If I had the surplus....."I would have invested apart from my time & resource at hand". Regards, Brij Bhushan Vij `(MJD 2455139)/1361+D-315W45-02 (G. Tuesday, 2009 November 04H20:28 (decimal) EST` Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30 Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30 (365th day of Year is World Day) My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/ ****As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*** "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai" Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:04:51 +0000 From: karl.palmen@... Subject: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle To: CALNDR-L@... Dear Helios, Victor and Calendar People Some time ago, I had worked out some lunisolar cycles that are a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year cycle. They are at http://www.the-light.com/cal/Lunisolar400.html of http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html . This list does not include the 5.7 million year cycle used for Easter, because it is so long. For relatively short cycles we have 13 Gregorian cycles with 280235 – 1599 = 64315 lunar months averaging 29.5306072 days 16 Gregorian cycles with 344235 – 1799 = 79157 lunar months averaging 29.5305785 days 29 Gregorian cycles with 624235 – 3299 = 143472 lunar months averaging 29.5305913 days 45 Gregorian cycles with 968235 – 4999 = 222629 lunar months averaging 29.5305868 days The cycle of 29 Gregorian cycles has exactly 8967 months per 725 years and the ratio 29/32 crops up. The cycle of 45 Gregorian cycles is very accurate to today’s mean synodic month and has a ratio of 45/49. The ratio of 29/32 or 45/49 is the number of Gregorian cycles per correction of the Metonic cycle by 1/19 month, which can be done by truncating on Metonic cycle by an Octaeteris of 8 years equated to 99 lunar months. For the Gregorian Lunisolar calendar the ratio is 750/817, which is about 0.918 and is equivalent to about one 1/19 month correction every 367.197 years. The cycle of 45 Gregorian cycles has about one such correction every 367.347 years and for the 29 Gregorian cycles, it is exactly one such correction every 362.5 years (half of 725 years). Karl 10(14(15 -- Scanned by iCritical. Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. -- Scanned by iCritical.
	Re: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle by Amos Shapir :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. Can someone explain to Brij the difference between precision and accuracy? Both the length of the year and the length of the month change by a few milliseconds per year -- that's just the secular (non periodic) change; periodic changes are much larger. Now the last "1" digit on the first value below represents precison of 1.e-29 of a lunation, which is about 1.e-20 of the secular change; in short, this value had become outdated within a billonth of a billionth of a second from the time it was calculated! Actually, anything past the 9th digit of these values can be considered garbage. Amos Shapir Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:17:12 -0500 From: metricvij@... Subject: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle To: CALNDR-L@... Karl, CC sirs: ... SOME LUNISOLAR CALCULATIONS 1-YEAR =12.36826641079700841901364038531 lunation; 19-years =19.00023755915010653 lunation; 4935 lunation =399.00498874215 years Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.
	Re: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle by Karl Palmen :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. Dear Brij and Calendar People The correction of the 19-year cycle by removing 1/19 of a lunar month can be realised* in a calendar by removing 8 years of 99 lunar months, leaving a truncated Metonic cycle of 11 years of 136 months. This can be seen that if it were done 19 times to 19 Metonic cycles; you’d then get 1911=209 years of 19136=2584 lunar months. This is the same number of years and one month less than 11 Metonic cycles of 209 years of 11235=2585 months. Brij has not shown how a correction by the omission of ONE tithi (in about 219 years) could be realised* . Such a correction could be realised through epacts, as is done by the Easter Computus. Also, correction by 1/19 lunar month has an advantage over any other fraction of a lunar month such as 2/59 or 1/30 lunar month is that once can construct a cycle with a whole number of years and whole number of lunar months with just one or any whole number of these corrections. In any cycle of a whole number of years and a whole number of lunar months the total correction of the Metonic cycle in lunar months must be a whole number of 1/19 lunar months. One can work out the number of Metonic Cycles M and the number of truncated Metonic cycles T, for any cycle of Y years and L lunar months: M = 99Y – 8L T = 235Y – 19L There is no such formula for the number of tithi corrections that gives whole numbers for any pair of Y and L. That is why M and T are so important and cannot be ignored. For an accurate cycle M/T must be near 17 to 18. In my cycles of a multiple of 293 and 128 years I didn’t say how many lunar months there are in any of the cycles, but I did give T the number of truncations. The number L of lunar months for a cycle of Y years with T truncations can be worked out as L = (235/19)Y – T/19 For example, seven 128-year cycles with two truncations gives (235/19)896 – 2/19 = (210560/19) – (2/19) = 210558/19 = 11082. Brij’s posts are not totally meaningless, but he fails to demonstrate that his ideas have value or are even worth thinking about. He shows a lack of judgement over the accuracy and precision of his figures and gives the impression that he has thought very little about his ideas and has just done some calculations. He does no favours by presenting us with inaccurate cycles and then saying somehow they’ll be corrected. Accurate cycles are available. Karl 10(14(19 From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij Sent: 05 November 2009 18:01 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle Karl, Amos & CC sirs: >A good approximation will be of the form of 19M – 8T years approximated to 235M – 99T lunations, where M and T are integers >and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18. I thank you Karl, sir. 19-years =6939.601603725839 days; 547=235 lunation (6939.68837035 days). The difference of 0.086766624161 day or 2h 4m.944 can be adjusted by omitting ONE thithi in about 219 years; which can be short accounted while continuous count -of 'tithi' in my proposed 447 =235 lunation vs year count in the cycle. The point I intended to make was to count in term of LUNATION vs years elapsed, in continuous count, as suggested in my 1730-years/21397 lunation(PLUS 3 tithi) that get compensated over 9 cycles, giving the right Mean Year & Mean lunation values! Amos is right and I thank him for pointing that 'accuracy & precision'* are TWO different aspects. My calculations show precision; and calculations - even the value for Pi is good enough when used to 6 or 7 digits. Purpose of my pointing to 399-years was again - the continued count of lunation instead of 'truncation & subtractions/additions' as and when desired. Karl has been generous in pointing (30896)-year cycle that has remained in discussion earlier too, that I have been aiming for the best Mean Year =365.2421875 days; also establishing the START point for calendar at: [(Y2000-80) +/-128] i.e. Y 1920/Y2048, inclding its resonance at 'Year 0000' plus/minus (AD/BC Era). I assume, my posts are totally meaningless to Calndr-L list and astronomy experts, for their interpretation and/or examination of my works http://www.brijvij.com as also at Victor's & Derek's sites. Workable accuracy for 'calendar' and precision of motion of planets are what I am trying to bring closer, sir. I thank you again & My reagrds to all, Brij Bhushan Vij `(MJD 2455140)/1361+D-316W45-03 (G. Wednesday, 2009 November 05H13:01 (decimal) EST` Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30 Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30 (365th day of Year is World Day) My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/ ***As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*** "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai" Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548 Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:40:29 +0000 From: karl.palmen@... Subject: Re: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle To: CALNDR-L@... Dear Brij and Calendar People Brij should find that 334 and 353 years MUCH closer to a whole number of lunations. They are got by subtracting 8 years from a multiple of 19-year cycles, which achieves one 1/19 month correction of the 19-year cycle. Brij quoted me out of context. The ratio I refer to is the number of 400-year cycles per correction of the 19-year cycle. 399 years is equal to 21 nineteen-year cycles and so is about 2 days short of a whole number of lunations. Brij’s other approximations are also poor and tolerate an error up to 3 days. A good approximation will be of the form of 19M – 8T years approximated to 235M – 99T lunations, where M and T are integers and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18. The quantity T is the number of corrections of the 19-year cycle as I have described. The ratio I referred in the quote is equal to Years/(400T) and the number of years per correction is simple Years/T. Brij’s better approximations have M/T as follows 220 years = 1219 – 8 , so M=12, T=1, therefore M/T=12 850 years = 4610 – 38, so M=46, T=3, therefore M/T = 15.3333 In both cases M/T is a little too small. Also 896 years = 4819 – 28, so M=48, T=2, therefore M/T = 24 In this case M/T is a little too large. These are not complete lunisolar cycles, because they do not have a whole number of days. For complete lunisolar cycles, go to http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html . Karl 10(14(18 10(14(18 From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij Sent: 05 November 2009 01:17 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle Karl, CC sirs: >The ratio of 29/32 or 45/49 is the number of Gregorian cycles per correction of the Metonic cycle by 1/19 month, which can be >done by truncating on Metonic cycle by an Octaeteris of 8 years equated to 99 lunar months. For the Gregorian Lunisolar >calendar the ratio is 750/817, which is about 0.918 and is equivalent to about one 1/19 month correction every 367.197 years. >The cycle of 45 Gregorian cycles has about one such correction every 367.347 years and for the 29 Gregorian cycles, it is > >exactly one such correction every 362.5 years (half of 725 years). I show some lunation calculations, that Calndr-L would find interesting. SOME LUNISOLAR CALCULATIONS 1-YEAR =12.36826641079700841901364038531 lunation; 19-years =19.00023755915010653 lunation; 4935 lunation =399.00498874215 years 100 L =8.085207472 years 200 L =16.17041494396 years 300 L =24.255622416 years 400 L =32.34082989 years 500 L =40.42603735989 years 600 L =48.511244832 years 700 L =56.596452304 years 800 L =64.68165977583 years 900 L =72.7668672478 years 1000 L=80.85207472 years To me it would appear that 399-years cycle can fit the bill (4935 lunation). While several year cycles promise with NEAR complete lunation number, use can be made among these rather than adhere to several corrections during the cycle, as proposed. I place these below: 220-years =2721.0186104 lunation; 432-years =5343.0910895 lunation; 842-years =10414.08032 lunation; 850-yrs =10513.02645 lunation 880-yrs =10884.074442 lunation 6539 years =80876.09406 lunation My suggested cycles that I have persued since long & under discussion have been: 11082 lunation =896.002692 years; 834-years =10315.134187 lunation; and 1730-years =21397.100891 lunation, which can be aligned by an additional 'Tithi' during 7132nd , 14265th and 21397th lunation, using 547=235 lunation per 19-years. This added 'tithi' automatically gets compensated in 91730=15570-years, as 192574th lunation of the cycle. My working is placed at: http://www.brijvij.com/bb_13th-nvrafriday.Wiki-srch.pdf and http://www.brijvij.com/bb_harappaTithi-Cycles.pdf 19-years cycle can be made use of positively, since 19-years are closer to my 'tithi working' and 547=235 lunation. 896-years, 834-years & 1730-years can be formed from: [(4619)+(211)]=896-years; [(4119)+(511)]=834-years; and (9119)+1 =1730-years. The need, therefore, is for development of "software', sirs. If I had the surplus....."I would have invested apart from my time & resource at hand". Regards, Brij Bhushan Vij `(MJD 2455139)/1361+D-315W45-02 (G. Tuesday, 2009 November 04H20:28 (decimal) EST` Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30 Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30 (365th day of Year is World Day) My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/ ****As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*** "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai" Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:04:51 +0000 From: karl.palmen@... Subject: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle To: CALNDR-L@... Dear Helios, Victor and Calendar People Some time ago, I had worked out some lunisolar cycles that are a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year cycle. They are at http://www.the-light.com/cal/Lunisolar400.html of http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html . This list does not include the 5.7 million year cycle used for Easter, because it is so long. For relatively short cycles we have 13 Gregorian cycles with 280235 – 1599 = 64315 lunar months averaging 29.5306072 days 16 Gregorian cycles with 344235 – 1799 = 79157 lunar months averaging 29.5305785 days 29 Gregorian cycles with 624235 – 3299 = 143472 lunar months averaging 29.5305913 days 45 Gregorian cycles with 968235 – 4999 = 222629 lunar months averaging 29.5305868 days The cycle of 29 Gregorian cycles has exactly 8967 months per 725 years and the ratio 29/32 crops up. The cycle of 45 Gregorian cycles is very accurate to today’s mean synodic month and has a ratio of 45/49. The ratio of 29/32 or 45/49 is the number of Gregorian cycles per correction of the Metonic cycle by 1/19 month, which can be done by truncating on Metonic cycle by an Octaeteris of 8 years equated to 99 lunar months. For the Gregorian Lunisolar calendar the ratio is 750/817, which is about 0.918 and is equivalent to about one 1/19 month correction every 367.197 years. The cycle of 45 Gregorian cycles has about one such correction every 367.347 years and for the 29 Gregorian cycles, it is exactly one such correction every 362.5 years (half of 725 years). Karl 10(14(15 -- Scanned by iCritical. Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. -- Scanned by iCritical. Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now. -- Scanned by iCritical.
	Re: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle by Karl Palmen :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. Dear Brij and Calendar People From:* East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij Sent: 06 November 2009 23:30 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle Karl, sir: >Brij has not shown how a correction by the omission of ONE tithi (in about 219 years) could be realised* . Such a correction could be >realised through epacts, as is done by the Easter Computus. I agree that the idea of using 547=235 lunation was -perhaps never concieved, and hence NO formulae/tables are ready -especially the use of Tithi value. Ancient scriptures if or when 'deciphered' might reveal some thought provoking results. As far my submission of removing ONE tithi (in about 219 years), I meant the continued count of years/days/tithi/lunation and maintain a balance between count of days vs count of tithi; like count of year vs count of lunation. I assume, Easter Computus, too has a method of count of days/lunations wrt 'specific dates' like the Hindu Panchangs, for calculation of celebration of Festivals dates. Here I propose to DELETE a tithi from the lunation following: 78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 525313^th'tithi', from 2675^th 5350^th 8025^th 10700^th 13375^th 16050^th 18725^thlunation. to arrive at days vs tithi alignment. KARL SAYS: A correction of the 19-year cycle requires a change in the years* vs. tithi alignment. A change in the days vs. tithi alignment won’t correct the 19-year cycle without a change in the year vs. tithi alignment. The Gregorian Easter Computus corrects the 19-year cycle by changing the number of tithis in a year. There is no count of days in the Easter Computus. Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675^th lunation has 28.5 tithis rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year. However I guess that what Brij was aiming at is that every lunation has 29.5 tithis without exception and that any year that has the specified lunation has one tithi removed from it, so bringing the mean number of lunations per 19 years down from 235 to a more accurate value near 234.997. Like the Easter Computus, this changes the number of tithis in a year. As far as I know, Hindu calendars do not use the 19-year cycle or any correction of it, but instead reckon the years and lunations independently. Hence referring to them is not relevant to correcting the 19-year cycle. I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5. Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis short of this. Also the 525313^rd tithi is completely wrong. My submission of adding THREE(3) tithi during 1730-year cycle is in this link that get automatically adjusted by the omitted lunation over (91730) =15570-years. I agree with 'A good approximation will be of the form of 19M – 8T years approximated to 235M – 99T lunation, where M and T are integers and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18' and leave these for evaluation and ....Accurate cycles are available, but newer cycles need be examined & found. KARL SAKS: Why? M = 99Y – 8L T = 235Y – 19L (i) for Y=1730 & L=21397; M= (991730) – (821397) =94; T = (2351730) – (1921397) =7; M/T =94/7 = 13.428571428571…1 and (ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574 M-2= [(9915570) – (8192574) =838 & T-2=[(23515570) – (19192574) =44; M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455 These results do not fall in the range. KARL SAYS I made an error in specifying the range of M/T. I meant around 18 or 19 rather than 17 to 18, so (ii) is accurate. 15570/T = 353.863, which puts it close to the 353-year cycle. >He does no favours by presenting us with inaccurate cycles and then saying somehow they’ll be corrected. No doubt, I have only tried to present yet another direction wherein NO WORK had ever been done and I point to* a certain possibility, or the way I see. KARL DISAGREES: Plenty of work has been done on lunisolar cycles on this list and Brij seems to ignore it. See http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html which forms just part of this work. >Brij’s posts are not totally meaningless, but he fails to demonstrate... My capacity to demonstrate 'concerns me' due to lack of my limited learning and the little time that I have in my life time! KARL REPLIES: I think it is due to lack of ability to think about the subject rather than education. Karl 10(14(22 -- Scanned by iCritical.
	Re: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: by Karl Palmen :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. Dear Brij and Calendar people I think Brij has made a few errors: He said that correction would occur at 78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 525313^th'tithi', from 2675^th 5350^th 8025^th 10700^th 13375^th 16050^th 18725^thlunation. but these tithis do not all occur in their respective lunations. In particular the last one is wrong. With exactly 29.5 tithis in a lunation, I make it 78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 525313^th'tithi', from 2675^th 5350^th 8024^th 10699^th 13374^th 16048^th 17808^thlunation. This can be seen by dividing the tithi number by 29.5 and rounding up. I think Brij intended the 7^th set of figures to be 552313^th and 18725^th which should be 18723^rd . I could not see any connection between the above example and the 1730-year cycle, but given that the 1730 years have 631214.5 tithis, it became evident that EIGHT corrections are done every 1730 years (one every 216.25 years). This suggests: 78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 552313^th'tithi', from 865^th 1730^th 2595^th 3460^th 4325^th 5190^th 6055^thquarter year Brij mentions a different idea of the Harappan year of 364 tithis. I’ve mentioned in an earlier E-mail that a tropical year has about 365.2422(29.5/29.53059)=364.864 tithis. The 19-year cycle of 23529.5=6932.5 tithis gives 364.868421… tithis, which is exactly 364 33/38 tithis to a mean year. If one tithi were removed from a year once every 219 years, this would be reduced to 364.863855 tithis which is quite accurate. One can’t fault Brij on his choice of 219 years given for a mean year very close to 365.2422 days. According to the 19-year cycle, 1730 years would have 1730(364 33/38) = 631222 7/19 tithis. Take 8 from this and you get 631214 7/19 tithis, which is quite close but not exactly the same the 631214.5 tithis reckoned by Brij. It is in fact 5/38 tithis short. Perhaps, the eighth correction (not shown) is by 33/38 tithi instead of 1 tithi, thereby creating one year of exactly 364 tithis. There is a simple relationship between the number of truncations T of the 19-year cycle and the number of X of these tithi corrections. T = (59/38)X X = (38/59)T This is because 59 tithi corrections correct by two lunar months so does 38 truncations. Brij’s 15570-year cycle with T=44 would require 4459/38= 68 6/19 of these tithi corrections and so cannot be realized by them, because a whole number of them is required. Also Brij mentioned the idea of making a lunar calendar identical to a solar calendar but with the 13^th day omitted from each month. This I have pointed out would make either the lunar month too short or the solar year too long. I showed him that if the 13^th were kept in every 13^th lunar month and every intercalary month (not corresponding to a solar month) had 31 days less any omitted 13^th, then a 391-year cycle of 4836 lunar months would result, which is considerably more accurate than the 19-year cycle. It has M=21 and T=1. Alternatively, one could have one 13^th in a lunar month annually except in a year with a saltus lunae. Contrary to claims by Brij such an idea does not use tithis of 2/59 lunation. One thing I think Brij needs to learn is that no calendar can use all* his ideas. Karl 10(14(23 From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij Sent: 09 November 2009 23:12 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle Karl, sir: >Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675^th lunation has 28.5 tithis rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about >how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year* Sorry, I was mistaken in using ' the word omission' instead of saying CORRECTION - i.e. during 2675th lunation (217th year)…etc also there are 29.5 tithi BUT THIS 'one tithi' is used to re-align years vs lunation and liikewise done 7 times, keeping the symmetry. I was not right in choice of word. .> I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5. >Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis shor t of this. >Also the 525313^rd tithi is completely wrong. This 'error occured' due to my counting 'tithi' and maintaining symmetry of 7-corrections during 631211.5 tithi in 1730-years. Alignment at 217^th year was to keep the symmetry of ‘7-tithi over 1730-years’ BUT it shall be more appropriate if THIS adjustment is done ONCE every 219^th/220^th year! The the EXTRA tithi making that of 30.5 tithi (instead of 29.5). I should have made this clear. 1730-years (631868.98812872113 days)= 631211.5 Tithi +3 Tithi =(631868.6082901554404145 days). In suggesting continued count of (547) =235 lunation vs years for alignment of 'a tithi', I mean to say ONE tithi is used for alignment of ‘Sun-Moon’ epact/difference EXCEPT the addition of THREE TITHI once every 7132^nd , 14265^th and 21397^th lunation till elapse of 15570-years/192574^th lunation (the last getting adjusted automatically). Mean Year =5686821/15570= 7(52+1/6+168/15570) =365.24219653179191 days =365d 5h 48m 45s.78035. and Mean Lunation= 5686821/192574 = 29.530575259380809455067 days =29d 12h 44m 1s.702411 Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long – especially in Panchang calculations! However, use of (547) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue. I have tried to demonstrate that Harappan Lunar Tithi Year cycle of 364-Tithi* [Please see: http://www.brijvij.com/bb1920_caL-harappa.pdf] was a unique possibility. Regards, Brij Bhushan Vij `(MJD 2455145)/1361+D-321W46-01 (G. Monday, 2009 November 09H18:19 (decimal) EST` Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30 Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30 (365th day of Year is World Day) My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/ ****As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*** "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai" Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548 Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:12:56 +0000 From: karl.palmen@... Subject: Re: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle To: CALNDR-L@... Dear Brij and Calendar People From:* East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij Sent: 06 November 2009 23:30 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle Karl, sir: >Brij has not shown how a correction by the omission of ONE tithi (in about 219 years) could be realised* . Such a correction could be >realised through epacts, as is done by the Easter Computus. I agree that the idea of using 547=235 lunation was -perhaps never concieved, and hence NO formulae/tables are ready -especially the use of Tithi value. Ancient scriptures if or when 'deciphered' might reveal some thought provoking results. As far my submission of removing ONE tithi (in about 219 years), I meant the continued count of years/days/tithi/lunation and maintain a balance between count of days vs count of tithi; like count of year vs count of lunation. I assume, Easter Computus, too has a method of count of days/lunations wrt 'specific dates' like the Hindu Panchangs, for calculation of celebration of Festivals dates. Here I propose to DELETE a tithi from the lunation following: 78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 525313^th'tithi', from 2675^th 5350^th 8025^th 10700^th 13375^th 16050^th 18725^thlunation. to arrive at days vs tithi alignment. KARL SAYS: A correction of the 19-year cycle requires a change in the years* vs. tithi alignment. A change in the days vs. tithi alignment won’t correct the 19-year cycle without a change in the year vs. tithi alignment. The Gregorian Easter Computus corrects the 19-year cycle by changing the number of tithis in a year. There is no count of days in the Easter Computus. Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675^th lunation has 28.5 tithis rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year. However I guess that what Brij was aiming at is that every lunation has 29.5 tithis without exception and that any year that has the specified lunation has one tithi removed from it, so bringing the mean number of lunations per 19 years down from 235 to a more accurate value near 234.997. Like the Easter Computus, this changes the number of tithis in a year. As far as I know, Hindu calendars do not use the 19-year cycle or any correction of it, but instead reckon the years and lunations independently. Hence referring to them is not relevant to correcting the 19-year cycle. I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5. Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis short of this. Also the 525313^rd tithi is completely wrong. My submission of adding THREE(3) tithi during 1730-year cycle is in this link that get automatically adjusted by the omitted lunation over (91730) =15570-years. I agree with 'A good approximation will be of the form of 19M – 8T years approximated to 235M – 99T lunation, where M and T are integers and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18' and leave these for evaluation and ....Accurate cycles are available, but newer cycles need be examined & found. KARL SAKS: Why? M = 99Y – 8L T = 235Y – 19L (i) for Y=1730 & L=21397; M= (991730) – (821397) =94; T = (2351730) – (1921397) =7; M/T =94/7 = 13.428571428571…1 and (ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574 M-2= [(9915570) – (8192574) =838 & T-2=[(23515570) – (19192574) =44; M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455 These results do not fall in the range. KARL SAYS I made an error in specifying the range of M/T. I meant around 18 or 19 rather than 17 to 18, so (ii) is accurate. 15570/T = 353.863, which puts it close to the 353-year cycle. >He does no favours by presenting us with inaccurate cycles and then saying somehow they’ll be corrected. No doubt, I have only tried to present yet another direction wherein NO WORK had ever been done and I point to* a certain possibility, or the way I see. KARL DISAGREES: Plenty of work has been done on lunisolar cycles on this list and Brij seems to ignore it. See http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html which forms just part of this work. >Brij’s posts are not totally meaningless, but he fails to demonstrate... My capacity to demonstrate 'concerns me' due to lack of my limited learning and the little time that I have in my life time! KARL REPLIES: I think it is due to lack of ability to think about the subject rather than education. Karl 10(14(22 -- Scanned by iCritical. Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live. Learn more. -- Scanned by iCritical.
	A Possible: 547 lunation Calendar by Karl Palmen :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. Dear Brij and Calendar People Brij said Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long – especially in Panchang calculations! However, use of (547) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue. A vision of a possible 547 lunation calendar that may possibly been used by the Harappan people has come to me. (1) Each year has exactly 365 dates and is divided into five seasons of 73 dates. (2) Months alternate between 30 and 29 dates for 47 months equal to 19 seasons, so that the 1^st and 47^th month have 30 dates. (3) Occasionally there will be a dateless day not counted in a year or month in which a special festival is celebrated, such dates occur once every 20 seasons and 20 dates = 1480 dates = 1481 days for a mean month of 29.5305779… days. This also gives rise to a mean year of 365.2466216… days and follows the 19-year cycle. This mean year could be corrected by taking one date from a year about once every 225 years or so. This would cause the months to run a day later with respect to the year and seasons. The dateless dates could still run once every 20 seasons and 20 days to make the mean month slightly longer. This calendar does not use a tithi of 2/59 lunation (or 1/30 lunation), but a tithi of 47/1387 lunation normally equated to 1/365 year. Each date counts one of these tithis. Karl 10(14(23 From:* East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij Sent: 09 November 2009 23:12 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle Karl, sir: >Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675^th lunation has 28.5 tithis rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about >how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year* Sorry, I was mistaken in using ' the word omission' instead of saying CORRECTION - i.e. during 2675th lunation (217th year)…etc also there are 29.5 tithi BUT THIS 'one tithi' is used to re-align years vs lunation and liikewise done 7 times, keeping the symmetry. I was not right in choice of word. .> I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5. >Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis shor t of this. >Also the 525313^rd tithi is completely wrong. This 'error occured' due to my counting 'tithi' and maintaining symmetry of 7-corrections during 631211.5 tithi in 1730-years. Alignment at 217^th year was to keep the symmetry of ‘7-tithi over 1730-years’ BUT it shall be more appropriate if THIS adjustment is done ONCE every 219^th/220^th year! The the EXTRA tithi making that of 30.5 tithi (instead of 29.5). I should have made this clear. 1730-years (631868.98812872113 days)= 631211.5 Tithi +3 Tithi =(631868.6082901554404145 days). In suggesting continued count of (547) =235 lunation vs years for alignment of 'a tithi', I mean to say ONE tithi is used for alignment of ‘Sun-Moon’ epact/difference EXCEPT the addition of THREE TITHI once every 7132^nd , 14265^th and 21397^th lunation till elapse of 15570-years/192574^th lunation (the last getting adjusted automatically). Mean Year =5686821/15570= 7(52+1/6+168/15570) =365.24219653179191 days =365d 5h 48m 45s.78035. and Mean Lunation= 5686821/192574 = 29.530575259380809455067 days =29d 12h 44m 1s.702411 Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long – especially in Panchang calculations! However, use of (547) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue. I have tried to demonstrate that Harappan Lunar Tithi Year cycle of 364-Tithi* [Please see: http://www.brijvij.com/bb1920_caL-harappa.pdf] was a unique possibility. Regards, Brij Bhushan Vij `(MJD 2455145)/1361+D-321W46-01 (G. Monday, 2009 November 09H18:19 (decimal) EST` Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30 Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30 (365th day of Year is World Day) My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/ ****As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*** "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai" Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548 Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:12:56 +0000 From: karl.palmen@... Subject: Re: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle To: CALNDR-L@... Dear Brij and Calendar People From:* East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij Sent: 06 November 2009 23:30 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle Karl, sir: >Brij has not shown how a correction by the omission of ONE tithi (in about 219 years) could be realised* . Such a correction could be >realised through epacts, as is done by the Easter Computus. I agree that the idea of using 547=235 lunation was -perhaps never concieved, and hence NO formulae/tables are ready -especially the use of Tithi value. Ancient scriptures if or when 'deciphered' might reveal some thought provoking results. As far my submission of removing ONE tithi (in about 219 years), I meant the continued count of years/days/tithi/lunation and maintain a balance between count of days vs count of tithi; like count of year vs count of lunation. I assume, Easter Computus, too has a method of count of days/lunations wrt 'specific dates' like the Hindu Panchangs, for calculation of celebration of Festivals dates. Here I propose to DELETE a tithi from the lunation following: 78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 525313^th'tithi', from 2675^th 5350^th 8025^th 10700^th 13375^th 16050^th 18725^thlunation. to arrive at days vs tithi alignment. KARL SAYS: A correction of the 19-year cycle requires a change in the years* vs. tithi alignment. A change in the days vs. tithi alignment won’t correct the 19-year cycle without a change in the year vs. tithi alignment. The Gregorian Easter Computus corrects the 19-year cycle by changing the number of tithis in a year. There is no count of days in the Easter Computus. Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675^th lunation has 28.5 tithis rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year. However I guess that what Brij was aiming at is that every lunation has 29.5 tithis without exception and that any year that has the specified lunation has one tithi removed from it, so bringing the mean number of lunations per 19 years down from 235 to a more accurate value near 234.997. Like the Easter Computus, this changes the number of tithis in a year. As far as I know, Hindu calendars do not use the 19-year cycle or any correction of it, but instead reckon the years and lunations independently. Hence referring to them is not relevant to correcting the 19-year cycle. I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5. Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis short of this. Also the 525313^rd tithi is completely wrong. My submission of adding THREE(3) tithi during 1730-year cycle is in this link that get automatically adjusted by the omitted lunation over (91730) =15570-years. I agree with 'A good approximation will be of the form of 19M – 8T years approximated to 235M – 99T lunation, where M and T are integers and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18' and leave these for evaluation and ....Accurate cycles are available, but newer cycles need be examined & found. KARL SAKS: Why? M = 99Y – 8L T = 235Y – 19L (i) for Y=1730 & L=21397; M= (991730) – (821397) =94; T = (2351730) – (1921397) =7; M/T =94/7 = 13.428571428571…1 and (ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574 M-2= [(9915570) – (8192574) =838 & T-2=[(23515570) – (19192574) =44; M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455 These results do not fall in the range. KARL SAYS I made an error in specifying the range of M/T. I meant around 18 or 19 rather than 17 to 18, so (ii) is accurate. 15570/T = 353.863, which puts it close to the 353-year cycle. >He does no favours by presenting us with inaccurate cycles and then saying somehow they’ll be corrected. No doubt, I have only tried to present yet another direction wherein NO WORK had ever been done and I point to* a certain possibility, or the way I see. KARL DISAGREES: Plenty of work has been done on lunisolar cycles on this list and Brij seems to ignore it. See http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html which forms just part of this work. >Brij’s posts are not totally meaningless, but he fails to demonstrate... My capacity to demonstrate 'concerns me' due to lack of my limited learning and the little time that I have in my life time! KARL REPLIES: I think it is due to lack of ability to think about the subject rather than education. Karl 10(14(22 -- Scanned by iCritical. Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live. Learn more. -- Scanned by iCritical.
	Re: A Possible: 547 lunation Calendar by Brillig :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Dateless dates? On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Karl Palmen <karl.palmen@...> wrote: > Dear Brij and Calendar People > > > > Brij said Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long – > especially in Panchang calculations! > > However, use of (547) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue. > > > > A vision of a possible 547 lunation calendar that may possibly been used by > the Harappan people has come to me. > > (1) Each year has exactly 365 dates and is divided into five seasons of > 73 dates. > > (2) Months alternate between 30 and 29 dates for 47 months equal to 19 > seasons, so that the 1st and 47th month have 30 dates. > > (3) Occasionally there will be a dateless day not counted in a year or > month in which a special festival is celebrated, such dates occur once every > 20 seasons and 20 dates = 1480 dates = 1481 days for a mean month of > 29.5305779… days. > > This also gives rise to a mean year of 365.2466216… days and follows the > 19-year cycle. > > This mean year could be corrected by taking one date from a year about once > every 225 years or so. This would cause the months to run a day later with > respect to the year and seasons. The dateless dates could still run once > every 20 seasons and 20 days to make the mean month slightly longer. > > > > This calendar does not use a tithi of 2/59 lunation (or 1/30 lunation), but > a tithi of 47/1387 lunation normally equated to 1/365 year. Each date counts > one of these tithis. > > > > Karl > > > > 10(14(23 > > > > > > From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List > [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij > Sent: 09 November 2009 23:12 > To: CALNDR-L@... > Subject: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & > 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle > > > > Karl, sir: >>Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675th lunation has 28.5 tithis >> rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about >>how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of >> the year > Sorry, I was mistaken in using ' the word omission' instead of saying > CORRECTION - i.e. during 2675th lunation (217th year)…etc also there are > 29.5 tithi BUT THIS 'one tithi' is used to re-align years vs lunation and > liikewise done 7 times, keeping the symmetry. I was not right in choice of > word. > .> I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is > 78912.5. >>Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis shor t of this. >>Also the 525313rd tithi is completely wrong. > This 'error occured' due to my counting 'tithi' and maintaining symmetry of > 7-corrections during 631211.5 tithi in 1730-years. Alignment at 217th year > was to keep the symmetry of ‘7-tithi over 1730-years’ BUT it shall be more > appropriate if THIS adjustment is done ONCE every 219th/220th year! The the > EXTRA tithi making that of 30.5 tithi (instead of 29.5). I should have made > this clear. > 1730-years (631868.98812872113 days)= 631211.5 Tithi +3 Tithi > =(631868.6082901554404145 days). > In suggesting continued count of (547) =235 lunation vs years for alignment > of 'a tithi', I mean to say ONE tithi is used for alignment of ‘Sun-Moon’ > epact/difference EXCEPT the addition of THREE TITHI once every 7132nd , > 14265th and 21397th lunation till elapse of 15570-years/192574th lunation > (the last getting adjusted automatically). > > Mean Year =5686821/15570= 7(52+1/6+168/15570) =365.24219653179191 days > =365d 5h 48m 45s.78035. and > > Mean Lunation= 5686821/192574 = 29.530575259380809455067 days =29d 12h 44m > 1s.702411 > > Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long – especially > in Panchang calculations! > > However, use of (547) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue. I have > tried to demonstrate that Harappan Lunar Tithi Year cycle of > 364-Tithi* [Please see: http://www.brijvij.com/bb1920_caL-harappa.pdf] > > was a unique possibility. > > Regards, > Brij Bhushan Vij > (MJD 2455145)/1361+D-321W46-01 (G. Monday, 2009 November 09H18:19 (decimal) > EST > > Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda > Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30 > Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30 > (365th day of Year is World Day) > My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf > HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/ > ****As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*** > "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai" > Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548 > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:12:56 +0000 > From: karl.palmen@... > Subject: Re: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation > RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle > To: CALNDR-L@... > > Dear Brij and Calendar People > > > > From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List > [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij > Sent: 06 November 2009 23:30 > To: CALNDR-L@... > Subject: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: > Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle > > > > Karl, sir: >>Brij has not shown how a correction by the omission of ONE tithi (in about >> 219 years) could be realised . Such a correction could be >realised through >> epacts, as is done by the Easter Computus. > I agree that the idea of using 547=235 lunation was -perhaps never > concieved, and hence NO formulae/tables are ready -especially the use of > Tithi value. Ancient scriptures if or when 'deciphered' might reveal some > thought provoking results. > As far my submission of removing ONE tithi (in about 219 years), I meant the > continued count of years/days/tithi/lunation and maintain a balance between > count of days vs count of tithi; like count of year vs count of lunation. I > assume, Easter Computus, too has a method of count of days/lunations wrt > 'specific dates' like the Hindu Panchangs, for calculation of celebration of > Festivals dates. > Here I propose to DELETE a tithi from the lunation following: > 78902nd 157803rd 236706th 315607th > 394509th 473411th 525313th 'tithi', from > > 2675th 5350th 8025th 10700th > 13375th 16050th 18725th lunation. > > > > to arrive at days vs tithi alignment. > > KARL SAYS: A correction of the 19-year cycle requires a change in the years > vs. tithi alignment. A change in the days vs. tithi alignment won’t correct > the 19-year cycle without a change in the year vs. tithi alignment. The > Gregorian Easter Computus corrects the 19-year cycle by changing the number > of tithis in a year. There is no count of days in the Easter Computus. > > > > Brij’s suggestion seems to say that every 2675th lunation has 28.5 tithis > rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about how the > 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year. > > However I guess that what Brij was aiming at is that every lunation has 29.5 > tithis without exception and that any year that has the specified lunation > has one tithi removed from it, so bringing the mean number of lunations per > 19 years down from 235 to a more accurate value near 234.997. Like the > Easter Computus, this changes the number of tithis in a year. > > > > As far as I know, Hindu calendars do not use the 19-year cycle or any > correction of it, but instead reckon the years and lunations independently. > Hence referring to them is not relevant to correcting the 19-year cycle. > > > > I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5. > > Brij’s calculation seems to be about 10 tithis short of this. > > Also the 525313rd tithi is completely wrong. > > > > My submission of adding THREE(3) tithi during 1730-year cycle is in this > link that get automatically adjusted by the omitted lunation over (91730) > =15570-years. I agree with 'A good approximation will be of the form of 19M > – 8T years approximated to 235M – 99T lunation, where M and T are > integers and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18' and leave these for > evaluation and ....Accurate cycles are available, but newer cycles need be > examined & found. > > KARL SAKS: Why? > > M = 99Y – 8L > > T = 235Y – 19L > > (i) for Y=1730 & L=21397; > > M= (991730) – (821397) =94; T = (2351730) – (1921397) =7; M/T =94/7 > = 13.428571428571…1 and > > (ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574 > > M-2= [(9915570) – (8192574) =838 & T-2=[(23515570) – (19192574) =44; > M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455 > > These results do not fall in the range. > > KARL SAYS I made an error in specifying the range of M/T. I meant around 18 > or 19 rather than 17 to 18, so (ii) is accurate. > > 15570/T = 353.863, which puts it close to the 353-year cycle. > > > >>He does no favours by presenting us with inaccurate cycles and then saying >> somehow they’ll be corrected. > No doubt, I have only tried to present yet another direction wherein NO WORK > had ever been done and I point to a certain possibility, or the way I see. > > KARL DISAGREES: Plenty of work has been done on lunisolar cycles on this > list and Brij seems to ignore it. See > > http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html which forms just part of > this work. > >>Brij’s posts are not totally meaningless, but he fails to demonstrate... > My capacity to demonstrate 'concerns me' due to lack of my limited learning > and the little time that I have in my life time! > > KARL REPLIES: I think it is due to lack of ability to think about the > subject rather than education. > > > > Karl > > > > 10(14(22 > > > > > > -- > Scanned by iCritical. > > ________________________________ > > Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live. Learn more. > > -- > Scanned by iCritical. >
	Re: A Possible: 547 lunation Calendar by Karl Palmen :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Dear Victor and Calendar People I said in (3) dateless DAY. This would be a day one cannot go out with one's lover. Karl 10(14(23 till noon -----Original Message----- From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Victor Engel Sent: 10 November 2009 17:40 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: Re: A Possible: 547 lunation Calendar Dateless dates? On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Karl Palmen <karl.palmen@...> wrote: > Dear Brij and Calendar People > > > > Brij said Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long - > especially in Panchang calculations! > > However, use of (547) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue. > > > > A vision of a possible 547 lunation calendar that may possibly been used by > the Harappan people has come to me. > > (1) Each year has exactly 365 dates and is divided into five seasons of > 73 dates. > > (2) Months alternate between 30 and 29 dates for 47 months equal to 19 > seasons, so that the 1st and 47th month have 30 dates. > > (3) Occasionally there will be a dateless day not counted in a year or > month in which a special festival is celebrated, such dates occur once every > 20 seasons and 20 dates = 1480 dates = 1481 days for a mean month of > 29.5305779... days. > > This also gives rise to a mean year of 365.2466216... days and follows the > 19-year cycle. > > This mean year could be corrected by taking one date from a year about once > every 225 years or so. This would cause the months to run a day later with > respect to the year and seasons. The dateless dates could still run once > every 20 seasons and 20 days to make the mean month slightly longer. > > > > This calendar does not use a tithi of 2/59 lunation (or 1/30 lunation), but > a tithi of 47/1387 lunation normally equated to 1/365 year. Each date counts > one of these tithis. > > > > Karl > > > > 10(14(23 > > > > > > From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List > [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij > Sent: 09 November 2009 23:12 > To: CALNDR-L@... > Subject: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & > 399 Lunation RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle > > > > Karl, sir: >>Brij's suggestion seems to say that every 2675th lunation has 28.5 tithis >> rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about >>how the 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of >> the year > Sorry, I was mistaken in using ' the word omission' instead of saying > CORRECTION - i.e. during 2675th lunation (217th year)...etc also there are > 29.5 tithi BUT THIS 'one tithi' is used to re-align years vs lunation and > liikewise done 7 times, keeping the symmetry. I was not right in choice of > word. > .> I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is > 78912.5. >>Brij's calculation seems to be about 10 tithis shor t of this. >>Also the 525313rd tithi is completely wrong. > This 'error occured' due to my counting 'tithi' and maintaining symmetry of > 7-corrections during 631211.5 tithi in 1730-years. Alignment at 217th year > was to keep the symmetry of '7-tithi over 1730-years' BUT it shall be more > appropriate if THIS adjustment is done ONCE every 219th/220th year! The the > EXTRA tithi making that of 30.5 tithi (instead of 29.5). I should have made > this clear. > 1730-years (631868.98812872113 days)= 631211.5 Tithi +3 Tithi > =(631868.6082901554404145 days). > In suggesting continued count of (547) =235 lunation vs years for alignment > of 'a tithi', I mean to say ONE tithi is used for alignment of 'Sun-Moon' > epact/difference EXCEPT the addition of THREE TITHI once every 7132nd , > 14265th and 21397th lunation till elapse of 15570-years/192574th lunation > (the last getting adjusted automatically). > > Mean Year =5686821/15570= 7(52+1/6+168/15570) =365.24219653179191 days > =365d 5h 48m 45s.78035. and > > Mean Lunation= 5686821/192574 = 29.530575259380809455067 days =29d 12h 44m > 1s.702411 > > Use of Tithi value in Hindu astronomy is well known, for long - especially > in Panchang calculations! > > However, use of (547) lunation per 19-years had never been in vogue. I have > tried to demonstrate that Harappan Lunar Tithi Year cycle of > 364-Tithi [Please see: http://www.brijvij.com/bb1920_caL-harappa.pdf] > > was a unique possibility. > > Regards, > Brij Bhushan Vij > (MJD 2455145)/1361+D-321W46-01 (G. Monday, 2009 November 09H18:19 (decimal) > EST > > Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda > Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30 > Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30 > (365th day of Year is World Day) > My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf > HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/ > ****As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*** > "Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai" > Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548 > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:12:56 +0000 > From: karl.palmen@... > Subject: Re: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation > RE: Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle > To: CALNDR-L@... > > Dear Brij and Calendar People > > > > From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List > [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij > Sent: 06 November 2009 23:30 > To: CALNDR-L@... > Subject: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: > Lunisolar Cycles a multiple of the Gregorian 400-year Cycle > > > > Karl, sir: >>Brij has not shown how a correction by the omission of ONE tithi (in about >> 219 years) could be realised . Such a correction could be >realised through >> epacts, as is done by the Easter Computus. > I agree that the idea of using 547=235 lunation was -perhaps never > concieved, and hence NO formulae/tables are ready -especially the use of > Tithi value. Ancient scriptures if or when 'deciphered' might reveal some > thought provoking results. > As far my submission of removing ONE tithi (in about 219 years), I meant the > continued count of years/days/tithi/lunation and maintain a balance between > count of days vs count of tithi; like count of year vs count of lunation. I > assume, Easter Computus, too has a method of count of days/lunations wrt > 'specific dates' like the Hindu Panchangs, for calculation of celebration of > Festivals dates. > Here I propose to DELETE a tithi from the lunation following: > 78902nd 157803rd 236706th 315607th > 394509th 473411th 525313th 'tithi', from > > 2675th 5350th 8025th 10700th > 13375th 16050th 18725th lunation. > > > > to arrive at days vs tithi alignment. > > KARL SAYS: A correction of the 19-year cycle requires a change in the years > vs. tithi alignment. A change in the days vs. tithi alignment won't correct > the 19-year cycle without a change in the year vs. tithi alignment. The > Gregorian Easter Computus corrects the 19-year cycle by changing the number > of tithis in a year. There is no count of days in the Easter Computus. > > > > Brij's suggestion seems to say that every 2675th lunation has 28.5 tithis > rather than the usual 29.5 tithis. This tells me nothing about how the > 19-year cycle would be corrected, because there is no mention of the year. > > However I guess that what Brij was aiming at is that every lunation has 29.5 > tithis without exception and that any year that has the specified lunation > has one tithi removed from it, so bringing the mean number of lunations per > 19 years down from 235 to a more accurate value near 234.997. Like the > Easter Computus, this changes the number of tithis in a year. > > > > As far as I know, Hindu calendars do not use the 19-year cycle or any > correction of it, but instead reckon the years and lunations independently. > Hence referring to them is not relevant to correcting the 19-year cycle. > > > > I notice that the number of tithis in 2675 lunations is 78912.5. > > Brij's calculation seems to be about 10 tithis short of this. > > Also the 525313rd tithi is completely wrong. > > > > My submission of adding THREE(3) tithi during 1730-year cycle is in this > link that get automatically adjusted by the omitted lunation over (91730) > =15570-years. I agree with 'A good approximation will be of the form of 19M > - 8T years approximated to 235M - 99T lunation, where M and T are > integers and the ratio M/T is around 17 or 18' and leave these for > evaluation and ....Accurate cycles are available, but newer cycles need be > examined & found. > > KARL SAKS: Why? > > M = 99Y - 8L > > T = 235Y - 19L > > (i) for Y=1730 & L=21397; > > M= (991730) - (821397) =94; T = (2351730) - (1921397) =7; M/T =94/7 > = 13.428571428571...1 and > > (ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574 > > M-2= [(9915570) - (8192574) =838 & T-2=[(23515570) - (19192574) =44; > M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455 > > These results do not fall in the range. > > KARL SAYS I made an error in specifying the range of M/T. I meant around 18 > or 19 rather than 17 to 18, so (ii) is accurate. > > 15570/T = 353.863, which puts it close to the 353-year cycle. > > > >>He does no favours by presenting us with inaccurate cycles and then saying >> somehow they'll be corrected. > No doubt, I have only tried to present yet another direction wherein NO WORK > had ever been done and I point to a certain possibility, or the way I see. > > KARL DISAGREES: Plenty of work has been done on lunisolar cycles on this > list and Brij seems to ignore it. See > > http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Lunisolar_xls.html which forms just part of > this work. > >>Brij's posts are not totally meaningless, but he fails to demonstrate... > My capacity to demonstrate 'concerns me' due to lack of my limited learning > and the little time that I have in my life time! > > KARL REPLIES: I think it is due to lack of ability to think about the > subject rather than education. > > > > Karl > > > > 10(14(22 > > > > > > -- > Scanned by iCritical. > > ________________________________ > > Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live. Learn more. > > -- > Scanned by iCritical. > -- Scanned by iCritical.
	Brij's 1730=(9119)+1 RE: Astronomers' Insight RE: by Karl Palmen :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. Dear Brij and Calendar People From:* East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij Sent: 11 November 2009 02:12 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: Astronomers' Insight RE: A Possible: 547 lunation Calendar Distribution of 1730-years in grouping of 19-years, also is possible as: [1730=(9119)+1 and (8619+128)], where each 19-years/547 i.e. 235 lunation, may have suggested corrections. KARL SAYS: This is no value whatsoever! Only Y=(M-T)19 + T11 is of value and then only if M/T is not far from 18 or 19, where M and T are as defined in an earlier note and calculated by Brij. Each 11 has 136 lunar months and corrects the 19 with 235 lunar months. The total number of lunar months L = 235M – 99T. Brij calculated: M = 99Y – 8L T = 235Y – 19L (i) for Y=1730 & L=21397; M= (991730) – (821397) =94; T = (2351730) – (1921397) =7; M/T =94/7 = 13.428571428571…1 and (ii) for Y=15570 & L=192574 M-2= [(9915570) – (8192574) =838 & T-2=[(23515570) – (19192574) =44; M/T =838/44 = 19.0454..455 This gives rise to the following examples: 1730=(8719+711) with M/T = 94/7 = 13 3/7 which is too small 15,570=(79419+4411) = 2(39719+2211) with M/T = 419/22 = 19 1/22 which is close. Brij may note that M-T = 11L – 136Y Karl 10(14(24 PS: if you take 8 years to have 99 lunations, then 1730=(8619+128) has 21398 lunations rather than 21397 from 1730=(8719+711) . -- Scanned by iCritical.
	Re: ALIGNMENT RE: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: by Karl Palmen :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. Dear Brij and Calendar People From:* East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij Sent: 10 November 2009 18:25 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: ALIGNMENT RE: CLARIFYING RE: 7 omissions RE: 547 lunation RE: Mean Lunation & 399 Lunation RE: Karl, sir: >I think Brij has made a few errors. >I could not see any connection between the above example and the 1730-year cycle, but given that the 1730 years have 631214.5 tithis, it became >evident that EIGHT corrections are done every 1730 years (one every 216.25 years). This suggests: >78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 552313^th'tithi', from >865^th 1730^th 2595^th 3460^th 4325^th 5190^th 6055^thquarter year The errors 'pointed' appear because of ROUNDING or TRUNCATING* 7-corrections (not removing) - ONCE every 78902^nd 157803^rd 236706^th 315607^th 394509^th 473411^th 525313^th'tithi', from 2675^th 5350^th 8025^th 10700^th 13375^th 16050^th 18725^thlunation. 78902^nd 157804th 236706th 315608th 394510th 473412th 552314th - Tithi. It may be seen that NO TITHI is removed and ALL lunar months have the same number of 29.5 Tithi. It is thus, CORRECTION (alignment) and not removal, I submitted. KARL SAYS: All I’ll say here that some of the listed tithis do not occur in the respective lunations. This leads to contradiction. .....but given that the 1730 years have 631214.5 tithis; AGAIN give the mis-conception (prompting to MY ERRORS)! Please note: 1730-years (631868.98812872113 days)= 631211.5 Tithi & on adding 3 Tithi BECOME=(631868.6082901554404145 days). KARL SAYS: I don’t see how adding three tithis can change 631868.9881… days to 631868.60829… days. It may be seen that 631211.5 Tithi = 21397 Lunation and on adding the necessary THREE ‘tithi’ (i.e. 1730-years PLUS 3 tithi effectively become=21397.1 lunation) and make up for 631869 days (90267 weeks) that give: Mean Year =7(52+307/1730) =365d 5h 48m 45.7803468; and likewise Mean Lunation =631869/21397.1 resulting in 29d 12h 44m 3s.027326. NINE cycles of (17309) years =(213979)+1 =192573 plus 1 are=192574 lunation. Last lunation AUTOMATICALLY gets adjusted, as I point. KARL SAYS: I am aware that 1730 years have about 21,397.1 lunations. Hence 21,397 lunar months is about 3 tithis short of 1730 years. I see that Brij has made nine of these 1730-year cycles into a more accurate cycle by adding one lunar month to nine periods of 21,397 lunar months to get 192,574 lunar months in 15,570 years. If there are 631214.5 tithis in each of the first eight 1730-year cycles, then the ninth must have 631217 tithis to get the required 192,574 lunations in the 15,570-year cycle. If the 15,570-year cycle were made by whole tithi corrections of the 19-year cycle, we’d require 1298 corrections (= 44 lunations) over nineteen 15,570-year cycles, which is about one correction per 227.9 years (Yes, that 44 is the value of T). I’ll point out to calendar people that in an earlier E-mail that Brij’s preference for the 1730-year cycle arises from the fact that it is the sum of the 896-year cycle with 159 leap weeks and the 834-year cycle with 148 leap weeks so has 307 leap weeks. This gives it 521730+307=90,267 weeks equal to 631,869 days as reckoned by Brij above. This gives mean year of about 365.24219653 days and nine of these with 192,574 lunar months have a mean lunar month of 29.5305753 days (29d 12h 44m 1.70241s). >I think Brij intended the 7^th set of figures to be 552313^th and 18725^th which should be 18723^rd. ^{18725 lunation seem to be right, for correction (26757 =18725).} KARL SAYS: So Brij has made the error of multiplying after* rounding, thereby multiplying the rounding error! What I did was to divide the tithi number by 29.5 then round up (as appropriate for ordinal numbers). ^{Thus, (91730)-years/192574 lunation fit in for the SHORTER lunisolar cycle, I point.} >One thing I think Brij needs to learn is that no calendar can use all* his ideas. I do not deny THIS but am open to Karl's suggestion so long as the FORMAT of corrected Gregorian calendar remain similar to the currently used calendar on removal of July 31st and shifting this as February 29th, so the format can of of use to either divide 4 Leap Days or divide six(6) Leap Week plans to give Mean Year =365.2421875 days - that to me seem rational and closer to Astronomers' Average Mean Year of FOUR cardinal points : http://www.brijvij.com/bb_deci-sec-nu-mtr.pdf KARL SAYS: Such a calendar can be made into a lunisolar calendar based on the 19-year cycle (with corrections) only if leap days rather than leap weeks are used. Then it could be done in a manner similar to the Gregorian Easter Computus. It CANNOT be done with a leap week calendar, because 19 years would in such a calendar contain exactly 991, 992 or 933 weeks which is 6937, 6944 or 6951 days, while 235 lunar months have either 6939 or 6940 days. However one could make a leap week calendar lunisolar by overlaying a lunar calendar (which may count tithis) or using epacts that depend on which year has a leap week, but neither would follow a 19-year cycle (with corrections). Karl 10(17(24 -- Scanned by iCritical.
	Re: P.S. RE: Brij's 1730=(9119)+1 RE: Astronomers' Insight RE: by Karl Palmen :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. Dear Calendar People Brij’s check gives insight in why he publishes valueless results such as 1730=(9119)+1 or 1730=(8619+128). From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij Sent: 11 November 2009 22:06 To: CALNDR-L@... Subject: P.S. RE: Brij's 1730=(9119)+1 RE: Astronomers' Insight RE: Karl, sir: > PS: if you take 8 years to have 99 lunations, then 1730=(8619+128) has 21398 lunations rather than 21397 from 1730=(8719+711) . Is this right? Or... [A] (8619)+(128)-yrs =20209.747315242312 lunation) + (1187.353575436513 lunation) = 21397.100890678825 lunation; and [B] (8719)+(711)-years =(20444.744377047455 lunation)+( 952.3565136313696 lunation =(21397.1008906788245 lunation). I was only checking if "1730=(8619+128) has 21398 lunations" were indeed so? No offence, sir.....only checking! Please note I wrote if you take 8 years to have 99 lunations and also took 19 to have 235 lunations. See calculation further below. Actually, the check Brij did would give the same result (allowing for calculator error) for both [A] and [B] regardless of what number of lunations per year you use. One could use as 12, 12.4, 13.75 lunations per year or even the trivial value of 1 lunation per year and still get [A] and [B] equal . It tells you nothing more than (8619)+(128)=(8719)+(711). This arises form the fact that multiplication is distributive with respect to addition; i.e. a(b+c) = ab+ac. Brij’s lack of awareness of this may explain why he publishes such valueless calculations.* A more valuable calculation would be to have a whole number of lunations (lunar months) in each 19, 11 or 8 (e.g. 235, 136 and 99 respectively) as could be used in a calendar. Then we’d have: [A] 1730 years=(8619)+(128)years = (86235months=20210months)+(1299months=1188months) = 21398 months; and [B] 1730 years=(8719)+(711)years = (87235months=20445months)+(7136months=952months) = 21397 months. This statement tells you something about possible calendars. It shows that if you want 21937 months in 1730 years you use (8719)+(711)-years rather than (8619)+(128)-years. It also shows that when dividing a lunisolar cycle into parts you need to check the months as well as the years and these need to be calendar months and years (not astronomical years and months). Brij needs to note that this list is about calendars rather than astronomy and therefore it is calendar years and months that are of primary interest. Astronomical years and lunations are of interest only in assessing or ensuring accuracy or and they are not fixed constants as Brij assumes. Karl 10(14(25 -- Scanned by iCritical.