Jump to content

Talk:Full moon cycle: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →epochs and constants: TP: explain prime = Greenwich
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,061,409 edits
 
(35 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Old AfD multi | date = 13 July 2017 | result = '''redirect to [[Supermoon]]''' | page = Full moon cycle (2nd nomination)}}
{{old XfD multi |date=December 13, 2006 |result='''keep''' |page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full moon cycle}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=na|solar_system=yes|ss-importance=low|moon = yes|moon-importance = Low|eclipses=yes|eclipses-importance=mid|class=<!-- Formerly assessed as C-class -->}}
}}

==Notes on earlier objections==
{{TOCright}}
Hey, we went over this in 2003 when we wrote the page. One of the Wikipedia supervisors had the same objections and removed the article; I salvaged it for a while under my personal page. The adversary conceded when I could show some earlier literature that discussed regularities in the size and timing of the syzygies - still quoted at the end of the article.
Hey, we went over this in 2003 when we wrote the page. One of the Wikipedia supervisors had the same objections and removed the article; I salvaged it for a while under my personal page. The adversary conceded when I could show some earlier literature that discussed regularities in the size and timing of the syzygies - still quoted at the end of the article.


Line 6: Line 14:


[[User:Tom Peters|Tom Peters]] 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Tom Peters|Tom Peters]] 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

==Use of fumocy in predicting new and full moons==


The later part of the article is about a project presented to CALNDR-L to make a lunar calendar that takes accounts of the fumocy to get a better match with moon phases.
The later part of the article is about a project presented to CALNDR-L to make a lunar calendar that takes accounts of the fumocy to get a better match with moon phases.
Line 15: Line 21:
I'm not sure whether it should be included in wikipedia and move it here pending discussion about it.
I'm not sure whether it should be included in wikipedia and move it here pending discussion about it.


---
===periodic corrections===
[[User:Karl Palmen|Karl Palmen]] 12 April 08:35 UT
Besides predicting when a full moon will be large, the fumocy cycle can be used to more accurately predict the exact time of the full moon or new moon (together called: [[syzygy|syzygies]]). The Moon's [[lunar phase|phases]] do not repeat very regularly: the time between two similar syzygies may vary between 29.272 and 29.833 days (see [[new moon]] for a detailed account). The reason is that the orbit of the Moon is elliptic, its velocity is not constant, so the time of the true syzygy will differ from the mean syzygy.


==Isn't this a vanity article somehow==
The deviations of the time of true new or full moon from the mean new and full moon (which repeat at regular intervals), can be expressed as a sum of a series of sine terms, ''i.e.'' are of the form:
: C1*sin(A1) + C2*sin(A2) + C3*sin(A3) + ... ,
where the A's are arguments that vary with time and are made from combinations of 4 fundamental periods that appear in the orbits of the Moon and Earth; and the C's are amplitudes that have a constant value for a particular term. There are hundreds of terms; the two major terms depend on the mean anomaly of the Moon at the time of (mean) syzygy, that is: the distance along its orbit from the perigee, which is the phase of the Moon in its anomalistic cycle. As we have seen, this anomalistic cycle coincides with the synodic cycle again after 1 fumocy.


"The abbreviation fumocy was introduced by Wikipedia user Karl Palmen in the CALNDR-L mailing list in October 2002"
The three largest terms for the computation of true phase from mean phase are (from Meeus 1991):


Brings me this to mind:
<table border=1>
<caption>Main correction terms for times of New and Full Moon</caption>
<tr><td>Amplitude for New Moon</td><td>Amplitude for Full Moon</td><td>Argument</td><td>Meaning of the argument</td></tr>
<tr><td>&minus;0.40720</td><td>&minus;0.40614</td><td>M'</td><td>mean anomaly of Moon</td></tr>
<tr><td>+0.01608</td><td>+0.01614</td><td>2&times;M'</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>+0.17241</td><td>+0.17302</td><td>M</td><td>mean anomaly of Sun</td></tr>
</table>


[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles]]
Amplitudes in days; take the sine of the arguments.


As it extends not only to articles but to information or "original research" within articles.
Now instead of computing the actual value of M' and 2*M' and the sine terms for every new or full moon, we can use the fact that these approximately repeat every fumocy. So we can make do with a short table of 14 values, one for every new or full moon in a fumocy cycle. We only need to keep track of where we are in the basic cycle of 14 lunations. This very much simplified procedure gives much more accurate predictions of the syzygies than just using the mean values, but without computing a series of sine terms at every lunation.


: contributed from anonymous IP address and not signed - the opposite of vanity but not right either. Anyway:
===mean syzygy===
* this has been worked on by at least 3 people, so it's not just a personal pet|vanity thing; where do we draw a line?
But first we have to find the moment of '''mean''' syzygy, before we can correct it with our fumocy correction. [[Polynomial]] expressions are given on the pages of [[new moon]] and [[full moon]].
* stuff doesn't appear much in print anymore, so stuff developed on an Internet forum may be valid for an encyclopedia too
* K.P. coined a word that could be documented; why not mention that fact? If a new thing gets named and catches on, it is often hard to find out where it came from, or there are priority disputes.
[[User:Tom Peters|Tom Peters]] 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


: In response,
Instead of working with full polynomials, we can use a linear approximation. And instead of computing with decimals, we approximate the lunation length by a [[vulgar fraction]]. Moreover it is sufficient to keep track of just the [[numerator]] by adding once every lunation, an integer constant to a variable that is called the '''accumulator'''. This is similar to calculating the ''molad'' in the [[Hebrew calendar]]. It works as follows:
* It does not matter how they feel about the article, it matters how the editing and adminstrating body of wikipedia feels.
* It may be a valid source, but that is not the proper way to cite it.
* When, and if, "fumocy" becomes of wide-spread use (even if only by a professional astronomer crowd), we will document it. Regardless, it is not in use, and even if it were, it would be encyclopedic '''only''' to mention not use, as it is an abbreviation of sorts.
So, I have removed these flaws, and made it a better article. I will bring attention to it, once I figure out how. Thanks for your contributions to this article, Tom. --[[User:Jmax-|Jmax-]] 09:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


== Summary and recommendations of failed 13 December 2006 deletion proposal ==
The period of the mean synodic month can be approximated as 29 + 26/49 days (a more accurate [[vulgar fraction]] is 29 + 451/850; the Hebrew calendar uses 29 + 12 hours + 793/1080 hours). We maintain a variable called the accumulator which essentially is the time of day that the mean syzygy falls; in our case its unit is 1/49 of a day. So for one lunation to the next, we add 29 days, and we add 26 to the accumulator. Whenever the accumulator reaches 49 or higher, a day is filled, so the syzygy falls 1 day later and we subtract 49 from the accumulator.


Could someone please summarize the results of the '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Full_moon_cycle failed proposed deletion discussion?]''' It was my impression that more than half of the participants who addressed the issue of whether or not this is original research suggested that the original research should be removed---irregardless of whether or not the page was kept. Thanks [[User:Lunokhod|Lunokhod]] 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Because of the error in this approximation by a fraction, and because of the higher-order terms in the polynomial for the moment of mean syzygy, the accumulator needs to be corrected by subtracting 1 once every 65 years or so.


* AFAIK, It doesn't work that way--AFD is an up or down vote essentially--exception being they might administratively 'userfy' something, and that really is just an 'attitude' side effect on the part of the closing admin&mdash;more a matter of custom and courtesy rather than rules. Otoh, you can contact the participants and direct their attention here. <br /><br />{{nbsp|3}}Participants are priviledged (just like any lay party) to edit improvements into an article under discussion unmercifully, even during the AFD process, as they can during any xFD process. <br /><br />{{nbsp|3}}Many an AFD in the old days had numerous strikeouts and'' 'vote changes to keep' ''(amongst those taking the easy course and so wimping out and...) voting delete, whilst one or more of the really good editors, quietly went ahead and just improved the article to the point all that back-pedaling was necessary. <br /><br />{{nbsp|3}}From what I can see on this page, we're looking at a numeric method of solving an equation set that is derivative and essentially approximate, else it wouldn't need the fiddling resets every 18 cycles or so. Since I agree with {{Ut|Tom Peters}} that the qualification on OR are aimed at NPOV, more than such prosaic methods, I'm disinclined to jump into changing it. <br /><br />{{nbsp|3}}The proper venue would be to raise the point is in the [[WP:NOR]] governing talk page, or perhaps try to generalize your objections into a new guideline page proposal, where a focused discussion can be partaken by the many. <br /><br />{{nbsp|3}}You are quite welcome to raise the matter specifically with an alert 'spam' to the various participants that set that/those guideline(s) page(s) up back when. If you do so, please make sure you include links to all relavant pages, the VPP discussion, the AFD, etc. starting with a notice on that guideline talk which acts as your model 'alert'. I don't see how this article is harmful or controversial, and consider your strict constructionist interpretation on OR versus formula methodology at least as controversial in fact, but since both controversies have the potential to set precedent, you two should continue the discussion until some clear consensus is reached. Good luck to you both // // <B>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</B>[[User talk:Fabartus|<span style="color:green;">nkB</span>]] 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
===fumocy correction===
The first two sine terms in the table above can be evaluated together by making use of the the fumocy period: using the unit of 1/49 day, we should apply the following fumocy corrections to the value in the accumulator for the moment of mean new or full moon (first posted by Wikipedia user [[Tom Peters]] to CALNDR-L on [[February 7]] [[2003]]):


*As I stated before, I would agree that the last part of the article (on using the cycle to compute the syzygies) contains "original research" by myself and others. However, that research was done and made public at some other place than Wikipedia. So I believe that the controversy for this article is (or should be) about what is acceptable reference material for Wikipedia in the Internet age. Especially since the procedure is outlined in detail and sourced in the article, so can be checked by anyone with moderate mathematical skills by just reading it. [[User:Tom Peters|Tom Peters]] 14:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
<table border=1>
<caption>Basic Fumocy Correction Table</caption>
<tr align="right"><td>Fumocy phase (&times; 1/14):</td>
<td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td>
<td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>Correction (&times; 1/49 day):</td>
<td>0</td><td>-8</td><td>-15</td><td>-19</td><td>-20</td><td>-16</td>
<td>-9</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>16</td><td>20</td><td>19</td><td>15</td><td>8</td></tr>
</table>


== Capitalization of Moon==
<!-- ok this is the first paragraph that I now find confusing. Alba -->
Unlike the moons of other planets, the moon of the Earth has no proper English name other than "the Moon" (capitalized): see the IAU Style Manual, Trans. Int. Astron. Union, volume 20B, 1989; Chapter 8, page S30 [http://www.iau.org/enwiki/static/publications/iau_trans20b_s30.pdf PDF file]. I suggest an article review and also moving the title to '''Full Moon cycle'''. Cheers, [[User:BatteryIncluded|BatteryIncluded]] ([[User talk:BatteryIncluded|talk]]) 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
<!-- TP elaborated, rephrased, and re-organized 20060425 -->
: ''Moon'' should indeed be capitalized when used to refer to the object. But ''full moon'' refers to an event, not the object itself. Like the difference between ''sunset'' and ''Sun'' [[User:Saros136|Saros136]] ([[User talk:Saros136|talk]]) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
====more efficiency====
It is possible to simplify the computation of the approximate time of syzygy by combining the monthly linear increment to the accumulator for the mean syzygy, with the fumocy correction. When keeping a running count in an accumulator then for each successive lunation you first have to subtract the fumocy correction for the previous lunation, then add the mean increment of 26, and then add the new fumocy correction. This can be done in one step using a single table with 14 entries like before: this is possible because the fumocy corrections add up to 0 (first posted by Tom Peters to CALNDR-L on [[February 10]] [[2003]]). That is, you have to add differential increments to the accumulator. The cyclic table (first posted by Tom Peters to CALNDR-L on [[February 11]] [[2003]]) is:


== Numbers are completely wrong! ==
<table border=1>
<caption>Cyclic Fumocy Correction Table</caption>
<tr align="right"><td>Fumocy phase (&times; 1/14):</td>
<td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td>
<td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>Correction (&times; 1/49 day):</td>
<td>18</td><td>18</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>25</td><td>30</td><td>33</td>
<td>35</td><td>35</td><td>33</td><td>30</td><td>25</td><td>22</td><td>19</td></tr>
</table>


Check out: http://the-light.com/cal/FuMoCyNewMoons_199012_202312.txt <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/41.131.122.171|41.131.122.171]] ([[User talk:41.131.122.171|talk]]) 06:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
As before, the accumulator needs to be computed [[modular arithmetic|modulo]] 49 every lunation, and if it exceeded its bound, then the syzygy falls a day later.


I corrected the New Moon table for now, but the full moon tables are still the same, Karl if you're reading this please help! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/41.131.122.171|41.131.122.171]] ([[User talk:41.131.122.171|talk]]) 06:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
====long-term accuracy====
The 14-month fumocy synchronization between synodic and anomalistic months is not very accurate after running a few years, so using the fumocy to find more accurate times of the syzygies gives increasingly poorer results as time passes by. As we have seen, the Babylonian ratio of 269/251 is a much better approximation, and its spans 18 fumocy's minus 1 month. So we should correct the basic cycle (of 1 fumocy ~ 14 lunations) after 18 fumocy's; with the proper epoch, this can be done by skipping the first entry of the first fumocy (of the next large cycle of 18 fumocy's), i.e. use the entry with value "-8" instead of "0" from the first basic 14-month table above.


:Anonymous, you got it wrong. I am the author of the original table in the Wiki article as well as of the table that you link to, so please trust me to know what I am doing. The table that you link to counts time approximately the old-fashioned Jewish way, from sunset (fixed at 18:00 mean local solar time for my purpose). In the Wikipedia article I chose to limit complexity and confusion, and count time the conventional way from local midnight. The values for the accumulator, which is essentially the time of day of the syzygy, therefore differ by (49/24)*6 = 12; hence the accumulator for 6 Jan. 2000 is not 46 (as in the original table), but 46-12 = 34 . I hope this clarifies things. I'll try to revert. Also, it is not useful to list numerical values down to the nanosecond: the accuracy of the method is about half an hour, so 2 decimal days are appropriate precision. [[User:Tom Peters|Tom Peters]] ([[User talk:Tom Peters|talk]]) 12:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
When using an accumulator with the second, cyclic table above, then at the jump after 18 fumocy's, first correct the accumulator by '''subtracting 8'''. Then apply the differential correction for the new fumocy phase: use the value of 18 under entry 1 in the second, cyclic table above. What happens is that we skip a value of 0 for the fumocy correction (under entry 0 in the first basic table above), which preserves the cyclic nature of the tables.


==Assessment comment==
===solar correction===
{{Substituted comment|length=81|lastedit=20061227164510|comment=
The remaining error of the predicted time of the new or full moon can be halved again by taking account of the solar term (the third in the table of sine terms above). The anomalistic period of the Sun (365.259636 days) can be approximated by the calendar year (365 or 366 days; 365.2425 days on average in the Gregorian calendar). Since a calendar year has 12 or 13 new and full moons, it is sufficient to evaluate the solar term for 12 representative phases of this annual cycle, and put these in another table. The mean anomaly of the Sun currently is 0 around 2 January, so the table starts with the new or full moon closest to the beginning of January.
* Proposed for deletion 13/12/06

* Keep 23/12/06; but contains original research.}}
<table border=1>
Substituted at 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
<caption>Solar Correction Table</caption>
<tr><td>Lunar month:</td>
<td>I</td><td>II</td><td>III</td><td>IV</td><td>V</td><td>VI</td>
<td>VII</td><td>VIII</td><td>IX</td><td>X</td><td>XI</td><td>XII</td><td>XIII</td></tr>
<tr><td>Correction:</td>
<td>0</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>4</td>
<td>0</td><td>-4</td><td>-7</td><td>-8</td><td>-7</td><td>-4</td><td>0</td></tr>
</table>

These values must be used to correct the time of syzygy, not added to the accumulator itself.

===epochs and constants===
An optimum [[epoch (astronomy)|epoch]] for New Moons at the [[meridian (geography)|meridian]] of [[Jerusalem]] (at 35:14:03.4 deg. East of Greenwich = +0.097873 days ahead of UT) is [[July 29]] [[1992]]. That syzygy preceded the first syzygy of the current cycle of 251 New Moons, so it had the fumocy correction phase 13 (in the cycle of 0 through 13) of fumocy 17 (in a cycle of 0 trough 17). After this the 1st fumocy correction of the new cycle was dropped, and we started fumocy cycle 0 with fumocy correction phase 1 . This means that the '''first [[Dark Moon]]''' of [[2000]], on [[January 6]], was '''phase 8''' (in the cycle from 0 to 13), of '''fumocy 6''' (in a cycle from 0 to 17). The value of the '''accumulator''' at that time was '''34''', the fumocy correction was +9, and the solar correction was 0. So the New Moon occurred at (34+9)/49 = 0.88 days after local midnight, or at 0.78 days UT. The true time of New Moon was 18:14 UT = 0.760 days: an error of 0.02 days = 0.5 hours.

in short:

<table border=1>
<caption>Parameters for New Moons</caption>
<tr align="right"><th>&nbsp;</th><th>epoch</th><th>first New Moon in cycle</th><th>first New Moon in 2000</th></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>date</td><td>1992-07-29</td><td>1992-08-28</td><td>2000-01-06</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>fumocy cycle</td><td>17</td><td>0</td><td>6</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>fumocy phase</td><td>13</td><td>1</td><td>8</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>initial accumulator</td><td>43</td><td>=43+26-49 =20</td><td>34</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>fumocy correction</td><td>+8</td><td>-8</td><td>+9</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>cyclic accumulator</td><td>43+8-49 =2</td><td>=2 -8 +18 = 20-8 =12</td><td>43</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>solar correction</td><td>-4</td><td>-7</td><td>0</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>computed local Jerusalem time of syzygy</td><td>(47/49)*24 = 23h</td><td>(5/49)*24 = 2h</td><td>(43/49)*24 = 21h</td></tr>
</table>


To compute the date and time of [[full moon|Full Moon]] the same method can be used with the same tables; but because the Full Moon comes a half cycle after the New Moon, its fumocy corrections are out of phase by half a cycle from those for the New Moon. Hence its epoch is -(18/2)&times;14+(14/2)+0.5 = -118.5 synodic months = 9 + 7/12 years earlier: at [[December 30]] [[1982]]. The '''first Full Moon''' of 2000, on [[January 21]], had '''phase 1''' (in the cycle from 0 through 13) of '''fumocy 15''' (in a cycle from 0 to 17); the value of the '''accumulator''' at that time was '''23''', the fumocy correction was -8, and the solar correction was +4. So the Full Moon occurred at (23-8+4)/49 = 0.39 days after local midnight, or at 0.29 days UT. The true time of Full Moon was 4:41 UT = 0.195 days: an error of less than 0.1 days, or 2.3 hours.

''Note'': there was a total [[lunar eclipse]] at that time.

<table border=1>
<caption>Parameters for Full Moons</caption>
<tr align="right"><th>&nbsp;</th><th>epoch</th><th>first Full Moon in cycle</th><th>first Full Moon in 2000</th></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>date</td><td>1982-12-30</td><td>1983-01-28(/29) (*)</td><td>2000-01-21</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>fumocy cycle</td><td>17</td><td>0</td><td>15</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>fumocy phase</td><td>13</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>initial accumulator</td><td>25</td><td>=25+26-49 =2</td><td>23</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>fumocy correction</td><td>+8</td><td>-8</td><td>-8</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>cyclic accumulator</td><td>25+8 =33</td><td>=33 -8 +18 = 2-8+49 =43</td><td>15</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>solar correction</td><td>0</td><td>+4</td><td>+4</td></tr>
<tr align="right"><td>computed local Jerusalem time of syzygy</td><td>(33/49)*24 = 16h</td><td>(47/49)*24 = 23h (*)</td><td>(19/49)*24 = 9h</td></tr>
</table>
(*) The Full Moon occured on 28 January 1983 in UT, but on 29 January in Jerusalem mean local time; however the fumocy+solar corrections are off from reality by about 3 hours, and put the syzygy back at 28 January in Jerusalem too.

An alternate epoch for use with the prime (Greenwich) meridian is [[January 21]] [[1890]]. This epoch was chosen by looking for a date that satisfied the following criteria:
<ul>
<li>Epoch is after switch from Julian to Gregorian calendar to avoid confusion in date references.
<li>Initial value of 26/49 accumulator should be zero.
<li>Adjustment to this accumulator by phase should be zero.
<li>Calculated error (difference between actual dark moon and calculated value in 49th days) should be minimal at the epoch.
</ul>
[[January 21]] [[1890]] is the first date to match these criteria. The next date to match the criteria is [[January 1]] [[2120]]. The former is chosen because it is in the past.

The actual dark moon for that date occurred at 23:49 UT the previous day, 11 minutes earlier than the epoch.

===statistics===
The following table lists the errors of the polynomial, the fumocy correction, and the fumocy plus solar correction, as compared to true syzygy, for a period of 372 years = 4601 synodic = 4931 anomalistic months:

<table border=1>
<caption>Error Statistics</caption>
<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Maximum error (hours)</td><td>RMS (hours)</td><td>% day off</td></tr>
<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td colspan="3">&nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr><td>mean new moon</td><td>-14.13</td><td>&nbsp;7.51</td><td>26.8%</td></tr>
<tr><td>with fumocy correction</td><td>&nbsp;+6.90</td><td>&nbsp;3.06</td><td>11.6%</td></tr>
<tr><td>with fumocy and solar corr.</td><td>&nbsp;-3.86</td><td>&nbsp;1.11</td><td>&nbsp;3.9%</td></tr>
<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td colspan="3">&nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr><td>mean full moon</td><td>+14.12</td><td>&nbsp;7.49</td><td>27.3%</td></tr>
<tr><td>with fumocy correction</td><td>&nbsp;+6.88</td><td>&nbsp;3.05</td><td>11.4%</td></tr>
<tr><td>with fumocy and solar corr.</td><td>&nbsp;-4.02</td><td>&nbsp;1.12</td><td>&nbsp;3.9%</td></tr>
</table>

:RMS: Root-Mean-Square error (a type of statistical average)
:% day off: the percentage of cases that put the computed syzygy on the wrong day

---
[[User:Tom Peters|Tom Peters]] 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
---
[[User:Karl Palmen|Karl Palmen]] 12 April 08:35 UT

Latest revision as of 18:47, 25 November 2024

Notes on earlier objections

[edit]

Hey, we went over this in 2003 when we wrote the page. One of the Wikipedia supervisors had the same objections and removed the article; I salvaged it for a while under my personal page. The adversary conceded when I could show some earlier literature that discussed regularities in the size and timing of the syzygies - still quoted at the end of the article.

All this stuff is factually correct, which is increasingly rare in the Wikipedia. Also at least 2 people (myself and Victor Engel) have been contributing and using this, so it is at least twice as big as a personal pet project. So why remove all this?

Finally, recently someone flagged this article as sub-standard. What exactly are the problems?

Tom Peters 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The later part of the article is about a project presented to CALNDR-L to make a lunar calendar that takes accounts of the fumocy to get a better match with moon phases.

This is at best original research and may be seen to be a pet project.

I'm not sure whether it should be included in wikipedia and move it here pending discussion about it.

--- Karl Palmen 12 April 08:35 UT

Isn't this a vanity article somehow

[edit]

"The abbreviation fumocy was introduced by Wikipedia user Karl Palmen in the CALNDR-L mailing list in October 2002"

Brings me this to mind:

[[1]]

As it extends not only to articles but to information or "original research" within articles.

contributed from anonymous IP address and not signed - the opposite of vanity but not right either. Anyway:
  • this has been worked on by at least 3 people, so it's not just a personal pet|vanity thing; where do we draw a line?
  • stuff doesn't appear much in print anymore, so stuff developed on an Internet forum may be valid for an encyclopedia too
  • K.P. coined a word that could be documented; why not mention that fact? If a new thing gets named and catches on, it is often hard to find out where it came from, or there are priority disputes.

Tom Peters 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response,
  • It does not matter how they feel about the article, it matters how the editing and adminstrating body of wikipedia feels.
  • It may be a valid source, but that is not the proper way to cite it.
  • When, and if, "fumocy" becomes of wide-spread use (even if only by a professional astronomer crowd), we will document it. Regardless, it is not in use, and even if it were, it would be encyclopedic only to mention not use, as it is an abbreviation of sorts.

So, I have removed these flaws, and made it a better article. I will bring attention to it, once I figure out how. Thanks for your contributions to this article, Tom. --Jmax- 09:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and recommendations of failed 13 December 2006 deletion proposal

[edit]

Could someone please summarize the results of the failed proposed deletion discussion? It was my impression that more than half of the participants who addressed the issue of whether or not this is original research suggested that the original research should be removed---irregardless of whether or not the page was kept. Thanks Lunokhod 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFAIK, It doesn't work that way--AFD is an up or down vote essentially--exception being they might administratively 'userfy' something, and that really is just an 'attitude' side effect on the part of the closing admin—more a matter of custom and courtesy rather than rules. Otoh, you can contact the participants and direct their attention here.

       Participants are priviledged (just like any lay party) to edit improvements into an article under discussion unmercifully, even during the AFD process, as they can during any xFD process.

       Many an AFD in the old days had numerous strikeouts and 'vote changes to keep' (amongst those taking the easy course and so wimping out and...) voting delete, whilst one or more of the really good editors, quietly went ahead and just improved the article to the point all that back-pedaling was necessary.

       From what I can see on this page, we're looking at a numeric method of solving an equation set that is derivative and essentially approximate, else it wouldn't need the fiddling resets every 18 cycles or so. Since I agree with Tom Peters that the qualification on OR are aimed at NPOV, more than such prosaic methods, I'm disinclined to jump into changing it.

       The proper venue would be to raise the point is in the WP:NOR governing talk page, or perhaps try to generalize your objections into a new guideline page proposal, where a focused discussion can be partaken by the many.

       You are quite welcome to raise the matter specifically with an alert 'spam' to the various participants that set that/those guideline(s) page(s) up back when. If you do so, please make sure you include links to all relavant pages, the VPP discussion, the AFD, etc. starting with a notice on that guideline talk which acts as your model 'alert'. I don't see how this article is harmful or controversial, and consider your strict constructionist interpretation on OR versus formula methodology at least as controversial in fact, but since both controversies have the potential to set precedent, you two should continue the discussion until some clear consensus is reached. Good luck to you both // // FrankB 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated before, I would agree that the last part of the article (on using the cycle to compute the syzygies) contains "original research" by myself and others. However, that research was done and made public at some other place than Wikipedia. So I believe that the controversy for this article is (or should be) about what is acceptable reference material for Wikipedia in the Internet age. Especially since the procedure is outlined in detail and sourced in the article, so can be checked by anyone with moderate mathematical skills by just reading it. Tom Peters 14:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of Moon

[edit]

Unlike the moons of other planets, the moon of the Earth has no proper English name other than "the Moon" (capitalized): see the IAU Style Manual, Trans. Int. Astron. Union, volume 20B, 1989; Chapter 8, page S30 PDF file. I suggest an article review and also moving the title to Full Moon cycle. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moon should indeed be capitalized when used to refer to the object. But full moon refers to an event, not the object itself. Like the difference between sunset and Sun Saros136 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are completely wrong!

[edit]

Check out: http://the-light.com/cal/FuMoCyNewMoons_199012_202312.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.131.122.171 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the New Moon table for now, but the full moon tables are still the same, Karl if you're reading this please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.131.122.171 (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, you got it wrong. I am the author of the original table in the Wiki article as well as of the table that you link to, so please trust me to know what I am doing. The table that you link to counts time approximately the old-fashioned Jewish way, from sunset (fixed at 18:00 mean local solar time for my purpose). In the Wikipedia article I chose to limit complexity and confusion, and count time the conventional way from local midnight. The values for the accumulator, which is essentially the time of day of the syzygy, therefore differ by (49/24)*6 = 12; hence the accumulator for 6 Jan. 2000 is not 46 (as in the original table), but 46-12 = 34 . I hope this clarifies things. I'll try to revert. Also, it is not useful to list numerical values down to the nanosecond: the accuracy of the method is about half an hour, so 2 decimal days are appropriate precision. Tom Peters (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Full moon cycle/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Proposed for deletion 13/12/06
  • Keep 23/12/06; but contains original research.

Last edited at 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Full_moon_cycle&oldid=1259539192"