day 3000 of 3rd

[Irv Bromberg]

Dear Calendar People:

Today is the 3000th day of the Third Millennium!

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/>

[Mark J. Reed]

Why, so it is.  Happy . . . uhm . . . Trillennial Day?   Needs a catchy name. :)

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Irv Bromberg <irv.bromberg@...> wrote:
> Dear Calendar People:
> Today is the 3000th day of the Third Millennium!
> -- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada
> <http://www.sym454.org/>
>



--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Mark J. Reed]

No, Irv is right.  If day 1 of the third millennium was January 1st,
2001, then today, March 19th, 2009, is day 3000.

I imagine the error on timeanddate.com comes from assigning day number
zero to January 1st, 2001, in which case day number 3000 is tomorrow.
But even if you consider today to be day number 2999 in a zero-based
count, that's still the 3000th day!

Even if you don't have recourse to a JD or RD calculator, it's not
hard to tally up:

Dec 31, 2001: day  365
Dec 31, 2002: day  730
Dec 31, 2003: day 1095
Dec 31, 2004: day 1461
Dec 31, 2005: day 1826
Dec 31, 2006: day 2191
Dec 31, 2007: day 2556
Dec 31, 2008: day 2922
Jan  31, 2009: day 2953
Feb  28, 2009: day 2981
Mar  19, 2009: day 3000




On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:28 PM, ELITE 3000 <rw8000@...> wrote:

> It is? According to timeanddate.com, the 3000th day of the 3rd millennium is
> on 2009.03.20-Fr, so you're off behind by one day. The Vernal equinox will
> also fall on that day at 11:43:22 GMT (07:43:22 EDT) according to Kalendis
> where the sun londitude will be at 0.0°. For my location, Tilbury, Ontario,
> Canada, the local mean time will be at 06:13:39, while the local appearant
> time will be 06:06 on that date and time.
>
> Astrominical/Julian date/MJD
> Mean orbitial date: Mean Orbital Date: 2009.21640855826
> Rotation-Adjusted Date: 2009.21716391148
> Julian Day: 2454910.988
> Modified Julian Day: 54910.488
> Delta T: 66.4s = 0h 1m 6.4s
> Equation of Time: minus 444.8s = minus 0h 7m 24.8s
> Lunar
> Lunar Age: 23 days 10h 7m 36s
> Lunar Ecliptic Longitude: 288° 55' or 288.91°
> Lunar Phase: -71°, Vedic Krishna Paksha Tithi 10 = Dasami
> Lunar Distance: 403736.5 km, Perigee = 98° 20', Apogee = 278° 20'
> Lunar Ecliptic Latitude: 1° 41' S or 1.69° S
> Lunar Declination: 23° 47' S or 23.78° S
> Fixed Yerm Cycle date: 21-10(06(23
> LUNISOLAR
> Lunisolar Date: Year 26/60 = 6-2 (Earth-Ox/Water Buffalo), month 2, day 24
> Sexagenary Day / 60 = stem-branch: 1/60 = 1-1 (Tree-Rat)
> Midnight Solar Longitude at Time Zone UT+7h: 359° 13' 28.8"
> Midnight Solar Longitude at Time Zone UT+8h: 359° 10' 59.7"
> Midnight Solar Longitude at Time Zone UT+9h: 359° 8' 30.6"
> Japanese year: 2669
> Chinese year: 4646/4706/4707
> Korean Year: 4342
> Vietnamese Year: 4646/4706/4707
> Major-Minor Solar term: 1-2
> SYMMETRY 454/010
> 52/293 Symmetry454 date: Friday, March 19, 2009
> 52/293 Symmetry010 date: Friday, March 21, 2009
> WORLD/INTERNATIONAL FIXED
> 52/293 World (LWEY) date: Thursday, March 20, 2009
> 52/293 13-Month (LWEY) date: Thursday, March 25, 2009
> MISC
> Persian date: Jom'eh, 30 Esfand 1387 PE
> Julian date: Friday, March 7, 2009 AD
> Roman date: Veneris, nonas Martius MMDCCLXII AUC
> ISO date (International Organization for Standardization): 2009·W12·5
> Western Bahá'í date from sunset-to-sunset (weekday, day month, year of
> cycle, major): Independence day, 19th of Loftiness, Single year of cycle 9,
> major 1
> Western Bahá'í date from sunset-to-sunset (year/month/day BE): 165/19/19 BE
> Western Bahá'í date from sunset-to-sunset (major.cycle.year.month.day):
> 1.9.13.19.19
> Hebrew date (sunset to sunset): Yom Shishi, 24 Adar, 5769
> Islamic date: Rabi` I 23, 1430
> French Date: De'cade Decadi (30) Vento^se 217
> Mayan: 12.19.16.3.8 (11 Cumku/10 Lama)
> Coptic: Baramhat 11, 1725
> Ethiopian: Magabit 11, 2001
> Jalaali: Esfand 30, 1387
> LDN: 155751
> Old Hindu solar: Mina 4, 5109
> Old Hindu lunar: Phalguna 24, 5109
> Indian Civil: 29 Phalguna 1930
> Latin: VII Martius MMIX
>
> Happy vernal equinox!
> -ELITE 3000
>
>
> From: Irv Bromberg
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:41 AM
> To: CALNDR-L@...
> Subject: day 3000 of 3rd
> Dear Calendar People:
> Today is the 3000th day of the Third Millennium!
> -- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada
> <http://www.sym454.org/>
>

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Irv Bromberg]

From: irv.bromberg@...

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:41 AM

Today is the 3000th day of the Third Millennium!

On 2009.03.19, at 17:28 , ELITE 3000 wrote:

It is?  According to timeanddate.com, the 3000th day of the 3rd millennium is on 2009.03.20-Fr, so you're off behind by one day.

Well, then they are counting ELAPSED days, so that January 1, 2001 = day zero, whereas I count ORDINAL days so January 1, 2001 = day one.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/>

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009.03.19, at 19:56 , Brij Bhushan Vij wrote:

However, Vernal Equinox is the point in time when SUN is directly over head and causing EQUAL 12-hours in TWO hemispheres of Earth.

The only way that you'll reckon a 12-hour day and 12-hour night on the day of the vernal equinox is if you use an equatorial sundial to reckon the time!

(Some other types of sundials may also yield such readings also, but I'm less familiar with them.)

The ancients considered day and night equal on the day of an equinox because they used sundials to reckon time.

If you use a clock that proceeds at the rate of mean solar time, then the daytime will be approximately 30 minutes longer than the nighttime.

Daytime will be about 12h 15m, nighttime about 11h 45m.

The exact amounts depend on the observer's latitude, and when is the actual moment of the equinox in relation to sunrise and sunset at the observer's locale.

Due to atmospheric refraction, when Sun is at the horizon it appears to be higher than its actual geometric position.

Also, Sun appears as a disk almost 1/2° in diameter, and it is daytime when any part of that disk is above the horizon.

If Earth had no air, and if Sun were a bright point of light, then yes, on the day of an equinox the length of day and night would be equal.

OK, so 3000 days have now ELAPSED since the beginning of the 3rd millennium, and the northward equinox happened about an hour ago as I write this...

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/seasons/>

[Karl Palmen]

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

Dear Calendar People

 

See http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html , which shows where it is daylight and where it is night,

 

Karl

 

10(06(24

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Irv Bromberg
Sent: 20 March 2009 12:44
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Vernal Equinox Re: day 3000 of 3rd

 

On 2009.03.19, at 19:56 , Brij Bhushan Vij wrote:

However, Vernal Equinox is the point in time when SUN is directly over head and causing EQUAL 12-hours in TWO hemispheres of Earth.

 

The only way that you'll reckon a 12-hour day and 12-hour night on the day of the vernal equinox is if you use an equatorial sundial to reckon the time!

(Some other types of sundials may also yield such readings also, but I'm less familiar with them.)

The ancients considered day and night equal on the day of an equinox because they used sundials to reckon time.

 

If you use a clock that proceeds at the rate of mean solar time, then the daytime will be approximately 30 minutes longer than the nighttime.

Daytime will be about 12h 15m, nighttime about 11h 45m.

The exact amounts depend on the observer's latitude, and when is the actual moment of the equinox in relation to sunrise and sunset at the observer's locale.

 

Due to atmospheric refraction, when Sun is at the horizon it appears to be higher than its actual geometric position.

Also, Sun appears as a disk almost 1/2° in diameter, and it is daytime when any part of that disk is above the horizon.

 

If Earth had no air, and if Sun were a bright point of light, then yes, on the day of an equinox the length of day and night would be equal.

 

OK, so 3000 days have now ELAPSED since the beginning of the 3rd millennium, and the northward equinox happened about an hour ago as I write this...

 

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

 

<http://www.sym454.org/seasons/>

 

---

Scanned by iCritical.

[HR-CALNDR-L]

Sunrise and sunset are defined as the moment when the _upper_edge_ of the sun
disk is at the horizon. In the Netherlands, last Wednesday was the day when
day and night had equal length.

The vernal equinox is defined only by the heliocentric ecliptic longitude of
earth being zero. The ecliptic latitude, which is not always exacly zero, is
completely ignored. Earth's nutation is also ignored, so the moment when the
sun is exactly in the equatorial plane is usually not the very same moment as
that of the vernal equinox.

_________________________________________________
Kind regards / met vriendelijke groeten,

Henk Reints



Oorspronkelijke tekst Irv Bromberg

> On 2009.03.19, at 19:56 , Brij Bhushan Vij wrote:
>> However, Vernal Equinox is the point in time when SUN is directly
>> over head and causing EQUAL 12-hours in TWO hemispheres of Earth.
>
> The only way that you'll reckon a 12-hour day and 12-hour night on the
> day of the vernal equinox is if you use an equatorial sundial to
> reckon the time!
> (Some other types of sundials may also yield such readings also, but
> I'm less familiar with them.)
> The ancients considered day and night equal on the day of an equinox
> because they used sundials to reckon time.
>
> If you use a clock that proceeds at the rate of mean solar time, then
> the daytime will be approximately 30 minutes longer than the nighttime.
> Daytime will be about 12h 15m, nighttime about 11h 45m.
> The exact amounts depend on the observer's latitude, and when is the
> actual moment of the equinox in relation to sunrise and sunset at the
> observer's locale.
>
> Due to atmospheric refraction, when Sun is at the horizon it appears
> to be higher than its actual geometric position.
> Also, Sun appears as a disk almost 1/2° in diameter, and it is daytime
> when any part of that disk is above the horizon.
>
> If Earth had no air, and if Sun were a bright point of light, then
> yes, on the day of an equinox the length of day and night would be
> equal.
>
> OK, so 3000 days have now ELAPSED since the beginning of the 3rd
> millennium, and the northward equinox happened about an hour ago as I
> write this...
>
>
> -- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada
>
> <http://www.sym454.org/seasons/>
>
>

[Brillig]

Dear Irv and Calendar People,

On 3/20/09, Irv Bromberg <irv.bromberg@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2009.03.19, at 19:56 , Brij Bhushan Vij wrote:
>
> However, Vernal Equinox is the point in time when SUN is directly over head and causing EQUAL 12-hours in TWO hemispheres of Earth.
>
>
> The only way that you'll reckon a 12-hour day and 12-hour night on the day of the vernal equinox is if you use an equatorial sundial to reckon the time!

How do you figure? Atmospheric refraction certainly impacts sundials.

I suspect the ancients may have used another method for determining
when the equinox occurred: the angle of the path of the sun above the
horizon varies with the seasons. The maximum and minimum occur at the
solstices. Exactly half way (not in terms of time, but in terms of
angle) in between marks the equinoxes.

Victor

Victor

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009.03.20, at 11:00 , HR-CALNDR-L wrote:

The vernal equinox is defined only by the heliocentric ecliptic longitude of
earth being zero. The ecliptic latitude, which is not always exacly zero, is
completely ignored. Earth's nutation is also ignored, so the moment when the
sun is exactly in the equatorial plane is usually not the very same moment as
that of the vernal equinox.

Irv replies:  My comments concerned rather crude observation of the equinox.

Definitions based on celestial mechanics can be much more precise, but then one runs into controversies as to exact definitions of the moment.

Isn't the "heliocentric ecliptic longitude of earth being zero" undefined in isolation?

There is no heliocentric longitude in space which points to a fixed zero, because of precession of the equinoxes.

The only "nail to hang one's hat on" is the solar declination crossing zero, and at that moment one can define the ecliptic solar longitude as 0° at the northward equinox, corresponding to a heliocentric ecliptic longitude of Earth = 180°.

If the equinox is the moment of solar declination zero, then how can that be distinguished from a zero ecliptic latitude?

With respect to nutation in this context, it would be included in typical solar longitude calculations, but generally not in the solar declination calculation.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/seasons/>

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009.03.20, at 11:21 , Victor Engel wrote:

On 2009.03.19, at 19:56 , Brij Bhushan Vij wrote:

However, Vernal Equinox is the point in time when SUN is directly over head and causing EQUAL 12-hours in TWO hemispheres of Earth.

On 3/20/09, Irv Bromberg <irv.bromberg@...> wrote:

The only way that you'll reckon a 12-hour day and 12-hour night on the day of the vernal equinox is if you use an equatorial sundial to reckon the time!

Victor wrote:  How do you figure? Atmospheric refraction certainly impacts sundials.

Irv replies:  Yes, it does, but would you not be hard-pressed to read the moment of sunrise / sunset on a sundial so tight enough precision that it would make a difference?

Victor continued:  I suspect the ancients may have used another method for determining
when the equinox occurred: the angle of the path of the sun above the
horizon varies with the seasons. The maximum and minimum occur at the
solstices. Exactly half way (not in terms of time, but in terms of
angle) in between marks the equinoxes.

Irv replies:  Indeed, there is an example of that method being described in the Talmud Eruvin page 56a.

However the observation of the solstice sunrise directions are also subject to similar refraction errors, greater at higher latitudes because Sun skims along the horizon at a more acute angle, and the true maximum north-east and south-east directions of sunrise can only be seen if the moment of the north solstice and south solstice respectively both occur at the moment of sunrise at the observer's locale, and there are periodic variations of solstices and equinoxes of about ±15 minutes due mainly to the lunar cycle (with non-negligible contributions from Venus and Jupiter).  (Similarly for the sunset direction.)  If the positions were marked and recorded over a number of years then there is a better chance that the correct maxima will be found.  These are limitations of observational techniques.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/seasons/>

[Brillig]

I just had a thought. What if there could be more than two equinoxes
in a year due to notation. Well, that is probably impossible because
nutation is so small compared to the movement of the sun northward or
southward. OK. So what about the solstices? Those take place when the
north/south movement of the sun is zero.

So, for example, if we define the summer solstice as a local northern
extreme of the sun's apparent position in the sky, it seems possible
to have two such local maxima if the amplitude of the nutation is
strong enough and in the opposite direction.

Victor

On 3/20/09, Irv Bromberg <irv.bromberg@...> wrote:

>
> On 2009.03.20, at 11:00 , HR-CALNDR-L wrote:
> The vernal equinox is defined only by the heliocentric ecliptic longitude of
> earth being zero. The ecliptic latitude, which is not always exacly zero, is
> completely ignored. Earth's nutation is also ignored, so the moment when the
> sun is exactly in the equatorial plane is usually not the very same moment
> as
> that of the vernal equinox.
>
> Irv replies:  My comments concerned rather crude observation of the equinox.
>
> Definitions based on celestial mechanics can be much more precise, but then
> one runs into controversies as to exact definitions of the moment.
>
> Isn't the "heliocentric ecliptic longitude of earth being zero" undefined in
> isolation?
>
> There is no heliocentric longitude in space which points to a fixed zero,
> because of precession of the equinoxes.The only "nail to hang one's hat on"
> is the solar declination crossing zero, and at that moment one can define
> the ecliptic solar longitude as 0° at the northward equinox, corresponding
> to a heliocentric ecliptic longitude of Earth = 180°.
>
> If the equinox is the moment of solar declination zero, then how can that be
> distinguished from a zero ecliptic latitude?
> With respect to nutation in this context, it would be included in typical
> solar longitude calculations, but generally not in the solar declination
> calculation.
>
>
>
> -- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada
>
> <http://www.sym454.org/seasons/>

[Brillig]

Dear Irv and Calendar People,

On 3/20/09, Irv Bromberg <irv.bromberg@...> wrote:

> The only way that you'll reckon a 12-hour day and 12-hour night on the day
> of the vernal equinox is if you use an equatorial sundial to reckon the
> time!
>
>
> Victor wrote:  How do you figure? Atmospheric refraction certainly impacts
> sundials.
>
> Irv replies:  Yes, it does, but would you not be hard-pressed to read the
> moment of sunrise / sunset on a sundial so tight enough precision that it
> would make a difference?

Sure. You brought up the point about refraction, though. And here you
seemed to be assuming that it was not a factor. It is.

> Irv replies:  Indeed, there is an example of that method being described in
> the Talmud Eruvin page 56a.
>
> However the observation of the solstice sunrise directions are also subject
> to similar refraction errors, greater at higher latitudes because Sun skims
> along the horizon at a more acute angle, and the true maximum north-east and
> south-east directions of sunrise can only be seen if the moment of the north
> solstice and south solstice respectively both occur at the moment of sunrise
> at the observer's locale, and there are periodic variations of solstices and
> equinoxes of about ±15 minutes due mainly to the lunar cycle (with
> non-negligible contributions from Venus and Jupiter).  (Similarly for the
> sunset direction.)  If the positions were marked and recorded over a number
> of years then there is a better chance that the correct maxima will be
> found.  These are limitations of observational techniques.

True. I wasn't talking about sunrise/sunset direction, though, but
maximum elevation of the sun above the horizon -- zenith. The
northernmost zenith occurs at the northern solstice. The southernmost
zenith occurs at the southern solstice. My assertion is that the
equinox occurs at and angle that is midway between those two angles.
These angles are related to sunrise and sunset directions, but are not
the same. And just so you don't think I'm disagreeing with you, your
argument applies just as well to this as it does to sunrise/sunset
positions.

Victor

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009.03.20, at 15:54 , Victor Engel wrote:

True. I wasn't talking about sunrise/sunset direction, though, but
maximum elevation of the sun above the horizon -- zenith. The
northernmost zenith occurs at the northern solstice. The southernmost
zenith occurs at the southern solstice. My assertion is that the
equinox occurs at and angle that is midway between those two angles.
These angles are related to sunrise and sunset directions, but are not
the same. And just so you don't think I'm disagreeing with you, your
argument applies just as well to this as it does to sunrise/sunset
positions.

Irv replies:  You could use a gnomon to find the maximum and minimum solar declinations, but the observer would have to be watching during the solar culmination at mid-day (I suppose this is no more onerous that having to be watching at the moment of sunrise or sunset).  Sun would only actually be at the maximum or minimum declination at that time if that moment at that locale also happens to coincide with the moment of the solstice, which will rarely be the case.  Also, due to the 1/2° diameter of the solar disk the shadow of the gnomon is not sharp, so one would have to take care to find the mid-point of the shadow.  It is true that at mid-day the effect of atmospheric refraction ought to be negligible except at high terrestrial latitudes when Sun is very low in altitude at the opposite solstice.

You could say that it is an equinox when the end of the gnomon's shadow at mid-day is half-way in-between those two extremes, but you don't need that because if the sundial is properly set up the end of the gnomon's shadow follows a straight-line path on the day of the equinox, instead of its usual hyperbolic path (of course this won't work with the equatorial sundials that I wrote about previously in this thread -- for them on the day of the equinox the gnomon shadow would be centered on the dial inner rim, with equal intensity shadows on the upper and lower dial surfaces).

Also, the discussion concerned the origin of the word "equinox" (Latin for equal night), which clearly has nothing to do with sunrise/set direction or the solar declination at mid-day.  That leaves sundial measurement of the length of the day, which would be very close to 12 hours on the day of the equinox.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/seasons/>

[Mark J. Reed]

If I may ask a perhaps impertinent question, why do you treat "Sun" as
a proper name?  Do you do likewise with "Moon"?

On 3/20/09, Irv Bromberg <irv.bromberg@...> wrote:

> On 2009.03.20, at 15:54 , Victor Engel wrote:
>> True. I wasn't talking about sunrise/sunset direction, though, but
>> maximum elevation of the sun above the horizon -- zenith. The
>> northernmost zenith occurs at the northern solstice. The southernmost
>> zenith occurs at the southern solstice. My assertion is that the
>> equinox occurs at and angle that is midway between those two angles.
>> These angles are related to sunrise and sunset directions, but are not
>> the same. And just so you don't think I'm disagreeing with you, your
>> argument applies just as well to this as it does to sunrise/sunset
>> positions.
>
> Irv replies:  You could use a gnomon to find the maximum and minimum
> solar declinations, but the observer would have to be watching during
> the solar culmination at mid-day (I suppose this is no more onerous
> that having to be watching at the moment of sunrise or sunset).  Sun
> would only actually be at the maximum or minimum declination at that
> time if that moment at that locale also happens to coincide with the
> moment of the solstice, which will rarely be the case.  Also, due to
> the 1/2° diameter of the solar disk the shadow of the gnomon is not
> sharp, so one would have to take care to find the mid-point of the
> shadow.  It is true that at mid-day the effect of atmospheric
> refraction ought to be negligible except at high terrestrial latitudes
> when Sun is very low in altitude at the opposite solstice.
>
> You could say that it is an equinox when the end of the gnomon's
> shadow at mid-day is half-way in-between those two extremes, but you
> don't need that because if the sundial is properly set up the end of
> the gnomon's shadow follows a straight-line path on the day of the
> equinox, instead of its usual hyperbolic path (of course this won't
> work with the equatorial sundials that I wrote about previously in
> this thread -- for them on the day of the equinox the gnomon shadow
> would be centered on the dial inner rim, with equal intensity shadows
> on the upper and lower dial surfaces).
>
> Also, the discussion concerned the origin of the word "equinox" (Latin
> for equal night), which clearly has nothing to do with sunrise/set
> direction or the solar declination at mid-day.  That leaves sundial
> measurement of the length of the day, which would be very close to 12
> hours on the day of the equinox.
>
> -- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada
>
> <http://www.sym454.org/seasons/>

--
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009.03.20, at 19:15 , Mark J. Reed wrote:

If I may ask a perhaps impertinent question, why do you treat "Sun" as a proper name?  Do you do likewise with "Moon"?

My professor taught us to do that in Astronomy 101.

Yes, Moon is also a proper name, when it refers to the largest object orbiting Earth.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/>

[Helios]

Yes, the Sun and Moon are proper names. A man named Mundilfari had a son named Moon and a daughter named Sun. When Odin was creating the universe, He placed them in chariots to guide the orbs around the sky. Note that Sun is feminine and Moon is masculine. The names are similar throughout the Germanic languages, which of course includes English.

[Karl Palmen]

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

Dear Mark, Irv and Calendar People

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Irv Bromberg
Sent: 22 March 2009 01:42
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Vernal Equinox Re: day 3000 of 3rd

 

On 2009.03.20, at 19:15 , Mark J. Reed wrote:

If I may ask a perhaps impertinent question, why do you treat "Sun" as a proper name?  Do you do likewise with "Moon"?

 

My professor taught us to do that in Astronomy 101.

 

Yes, Moon is also a proper name, when it refers to the largest object orbiting Earth. Also a proper name.  

 

Karl  10(06(29 till noon

 

 

---

Scanned by iCritical.

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009 Mar 26, at 05:12 , Palmen, KEV (Karl) wrote:

On 2009.03.20, at 19:15 , Mark J. Reed wrote:

If I may ask a perhaps impertinent question, why do you treat "Sun" as a proper name?  Do you do likewise with "Moon"?

 

Irv replied:  My professor taught us to do that in Astronomy 101.

 

Yes, Moon is also a proper name, when it refers to the largest object orbiting Earth. (Karl wrote:) Also a proper name.

Irv replies:  ... that is why I didn't write "the" Earth in the message quoted above.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/leap/>

<http://www.sym454.org/seasons/>