On 2009 May 18, at 17:53 , Brij Bhushan Vij wrote:
I cite and draw your attention to THREE of my worked cycles.
Irv asks: Huh? But there were FOUR listed! Perhaps Brij miscounted because of the way that he spaced the cycles, which I fixed in the text quoted below, although he did originally color-code them.
Brij continued:
1. 896-yrs/11082 Ln; 327257d.002 (46751W); MY=365.2421875(365d5h48m45s.0); MLn=29.53049991 (29d12h43m55s.19)
2. 1749-yrs/21632 Ln; 638808d.59 (91258W+2d); MY=365.241852487(365d5h48m16s.05); MLn=29.530695266 (29d12h44m12s.071)
3. 8019-yrs/99181 Ln; 2928877d.12 (418411W); MY=365.242174835 (365d5h48m43s.906); MLn=29.53062582551 (29d12h44m06s.1)
4. 373632-yrs/4621180L; 136466169d.8(19495167W); MY=365.2421875(365d5h48m45s.0); MLn=29.5305893733 (29d12m44m2s.92)
Irv replies: All of the above have a mean year equal to or close to 365+31/128 days, which doesn't approximate any equinox or solstice. I don't understand why Brij consistently prefers to be in this "never-never-land".
For today, the lunation period of #1 is far too short, of #2 is way too long, of #3 is still too long, and #4 is a bit too long. For a fixed mean month cycle, a mean month in the range of 2 to 2.5 seconds in excess of 29d 12h 44m would be slightly too short and therefore essentially optimal for a millennium or two.
-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada
