« Return to Thread: solar year range

Symmetry Statement and Divide-by-Six RE: using Primary cycles of 11,15,19&33-years RE:

by Karl Palmen :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View in Thread

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Dear Brij, Irv, Tom and Calendar People

 

Brij said (quoting me in bold type):

>If a leap cycle is arranged such that the list of leap years is symmetrical, so that year n of each cycle has the same leap status as >the symmetrical year occurring n years before the first year of the next cycle, then the start of the first year of every cycle will >always be at the average for that cycle.
I have been attempting to build table of my Div. six(6) approach to place Leap Weeks and Keplers' Leap Weeks in my 7*128=896-year cycle using 159 Leap Weeks or 834-years/148 Leap Weeks

 

Brij refers to his idea of having a leap week on each year whose number is divisible by 6 plus some additional years referred to as Kepler’s Leap Week years. No such cycle can have the symmetry to which I refer to in the statement I made and Brij quoted and so the statement does not apply to any such cycle (i.e. the first year of such a cycle need not have an average start).

 

However the 834-year cycle may have one or two years that do have an average start, but they are not easy to find.

The 896-year cycle, has no year with an average start no matter how the 159 leap weeks are arranged, because each year has a start that is an odd multiple of 1/256 days from average. The same applies to the 400-year cycle with 71 leap weeks, because each year has a start that is an odd multiple of 1/800 days from average.

 

Karl

 

10(07(28

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij
Sent: 21 April 2009 21:30
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: using Primary cycles of 11,15,19&33-years RE: solar year range

 

Irv, Tom Peters, Karl & CC:
>
If a leap cycle is arranged such that the list of leap years is symmetrical, so that year n of each cycle has the same leap status as >the symmetrical year occurring n years before the first year of the next cycle, then the start of the first year of every cycle will >always be at the average for that cycle.
I have been attempting to build table of my Div. six(6) approach to place Leap Weeks and Keplers' Leap Weeks in my 7*128=896-year cycle using 159 Leap Weeks or 834-years/148 Leap Weeks & see combination for other cycles like 9405-years. From what I place at:
http://www.brijvij.com/bb_harappaTithi-Cycles.pdf
it may be seen that ANY cycle could be built using 11,19 & 33-years. I have tried to re-check my results and there could have been some typographic mistakes. I shall be grateful for pointing these. Karl's previous mail suggested to use larger PRIMARY cycles which, to my mind, can be made from my smaller cycle approach - especially the 19-year Lunar-Tithi cycle (in 6932.5 Tithi).
During this International Astronomy Year (2009) my inputs for A possible World Calendar  http://www.brijvij.com/bb_IndianContri..pdf and 
http://www.brijvij.com/bb_metro-contrbn.2007.pdf can become the cause for initaiating corrective actions for Reform of the Gregorian calendar.
 In my 896-year cycle, I place the start Era at [(Y2000 - 80) +/- 128] i.e. Y1920 [as also Year 0000 CE] and first Keplers LWk year at Year 2007 i.e. 87th year, followed by 9 more KLWs at intervals of 90-years; and likewise Era start for 834-year cycle remain at Y1920 but the First Keplers' Leap Week would be at Y2001 i.e. 81st year followed by 8 more KLWks at intervals of 84-years and repeating every 834-years.
 I am aware that Karl has a point suggesting (3*896)=2688-years to give Mean Year =365.2421875 days, while this distribution that I place has (149+10) 159 LWks, since 896-years have EACTLY 159 LWks to account. Karl's suggestion of (3*834)=2502-years is like saying (2*417)-years =834-years/(139+9)149 LWks.
Most cycles can be constructed from a combination of base cycles: 19-year Lunar (5*47=235 lunation) cycles, 33-year (12053-days) Solar cycle & 15-year cycle of indiction. What is the 'significance/importance' of this 15-year cycle of indiction, I am unaware? 11-year cycle does make some sense (being 3*11 of 33-solar cycle) that I have used in examining some break-ups for larger cycles!
Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij
Today:

(MJD 2454944)/1361+D-122W17-02 (G. Tuesday, 2009 April 21H16:49 (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


 


 




Scanned by iCritical.


 « Return to Thread: solar year range