From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bauke Jan Douma Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Calendar > Moon Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 23:46:59 +0200 Organization: a training zoo Message-ID: <464F7053.1090103@xs4all.nl> References: <5vmdnah-YPyRcNPbnZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@sysmatrix.net> Reply-To: bjdouma@xs4all.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1179611246 13965 80.91.229.12 (19 May 2007 21:47:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 21:47:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: "B. T. Raven" Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 19 23:47:25 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HpWlp-0001sh-8b for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 May 2007 23:47:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HpWlo-0000b4-Qk for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 May 2007 17:47:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HpWlb-0000ap-25 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 May 2007 17:47:11 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HpWlX-0000aS-M5 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 May 2007 17:47:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HpWlX-0000aP-FT for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 May 2007 17:47:07 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.29]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HpWlW-00014X-Vh for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 19 May 2007 17:47:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.240] (skyscraper.xs4all.nl [82.95.236.142]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l4JLl2qZ062068; Sat, 19 May 2007 23:47:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from bjdouma@xs4all.nl) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326) In-Reply-To: <5vmdnah-YPyRcNPbnZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@sysmatrix.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-detected-kernel: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:44200 Archived-At: B. T. Raven wrote on 19-05-07 14:26: > i) > It's obvious that sunrise-sunset times are dependent on the observer's > longitude and (to a smaller degree) latitude but is the same true (to > any degree)of the times of phases of the moon? There is a two minute > discrepancy between the times reported by the Naval Observatory and by > emacs 21.3 > Can this be explained by lat. - long. differences among the observers? I > understood that phases should be dependent only on the relative > positions of the centers of the sun, earth, and moon. My settings are: > > (setq calendar-latitude 45) > (setq calendar-longitude -93) > > ii) Astronomy question > > In the context of describing a storm and catastrophic flooding of the > North Sea coast, an English medieval chronicler says that Dec. 26, 1287 > (Julian, or 1-2-1288 Gregorian) is the ninth (day of the) (i.e. two days > +/- after first quarter). Emacs says it's the 13th (almost full). I was > under the impression that celestial positions could be extrapolated many > millenia backwards with great accuracy. Without instruments it's hard to > precisely determine new and full moon but easy to tell the difference > between quarter and full. Does any of you have any ideas to explain this > discrepancy? i. yes it could be explained by diff. in lat./long. I don't know which position either of them uses to calculate the times, nor the algorithms used. ii. how is Dec. 26, 1287 as you say 1-2-1288 Gregorian? If it's anything, it's 6 jan. 1288 'gregorian' (+11 days). bjd