mersenneforum.org Number of miles in a light year is prime!
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2012-01-10, 23:31   #34
Dubslow

"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3×29×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Graff It doesn't disagree substantially. The definition on the IAU page is almost correct. My definition using k is exact. 2 * $\pi$ / k = 365.2568983... days. I'm an IAU member and my primary work is orbits. I will alert the maintainers of that page to their imprecise definition. Gareth
Ooooohhhh, cool. Sorry about that. Any chance they could put the right definition on there, instead of the less-useful... wrong definition? If the page says "define", I'd like it to actually be right.

:P

Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2012-01-10 at 23:33

2012-01-11, 04:13   #35
ATH
Einyen

Dec 2003
Denmark

317610 Posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_year

Quote:
 Before 1984, the tropical year (not the Julian year) and a measured (not defined) speed of light were included in the IAU (1964) System of Astronomical Constants, used from 1968 to 1983.[4]
So my old Texas TI-85 calculator has the exact value for the old tropical light year (although the calculator is newer than 1984) while online conversion rounds it up to the nearest 100 miles/km.

Wikipedia has the exact current Julian lightyear while online conversion again rounds it.

2012-01-11, 17:49   #36
Graff

Jul 2006
USA (UT-5) via UK (UT)

22×59 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dubslow Ooooohhhh, cool. Sorry about that. Any chance they could put the right definition on there, instead of the less-useful... wrong definition? If the page says "define", I'd like it to actually be right. :P
I contacted the maintainer of that page and the imprecise statement has been replaced.

Gareth

2012-01-11, 18:01   #37
xilman
Bamboozled!

"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

22×3×11×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman Ok, one Gaussian year. Thanks for the clarification. Only goes to show how complex this situation has become over the centuries. I was clearly thinking of some other quantity which is/was measured on the basis of the J1900.0 siderial year.
And I've now discovered why I though it was the J1900.0 year (though it's the tropical year).

Quote:
 Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_year#Other_values Before 1984, the tropical year (not the Julian year) and a measured (not defined) speed of light were included in the IAU (1964) System of Astronomical Constants, used from 1968 to 1983.[4] The product of Simon Newcomb's J1900.0 mean tropical year of 31,556,925.9747 ephemeris seconds and a speed of light of 299,792.5 km/s produced a light-year of 9.460530×1015 m (rounded to the seven significant digits in the speed of light) found in several modern sources[5][6][7] was probably derived from an old source such as a reputable 1973 reference[8] which was not updated until 2000.[9]
Ok, so I'm seriously out of date. That's what comes of relying on old memories instead of checking with the definition du jour.

Paul

2012-01-11, 18:06   #38
xilman
Bamboozled!

"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

22×3×11×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Graff One AU is the heliocentric distance at which a massless particle in a circular, unperturbed orbit would have a mean motion of k ( = 0.01720209895) radians/day.
Which would imply that the solar mass is constant.

As the mass isn't constant, at which date was the mass measured, or does it have another arbitrary value which may or may not match the true solar mass at least once?

I'm nit-picking, of course, as the mass loss from EM and neutrino radiation and solar wind, offset by the mass gain from infalling matter such as comets is an exceedingly tiny fraction of a solar mass over reasonably short time scales.

Much easier, IMO, would be to define the AU as a particular number of metres.

Paul

2012-01-11, 20:50   #39
Graff

Jul 2006
USA (UT-5) via UK (UT)

22·59 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman Which would imply that the solar mass is constant. As the mass isn't constant, at which date was the mass measured, or does it have another arbitrary value which may or may not match the true solar mass at least once? I'm nit-picking, of course, as the mass loss from EM and neutrino radiation and solar wind, offset by the mass gain from infalling matter such as comets is an exceedingly tiny fraction of a solar mass over reasonably short time scales. Much easier, IMO, would be to define the AU as a particular number of metres. Paul
In the 1976 IAU System of Astronomical Constants, the length of the AU
is a derived constant, derived by multiplying one defining constant
(c, the speed of light in a vacuum) by one primary constant ($\tau_{A}$, the light-time for unit distance).

Gareth

2012-01-11, 21:04   #40
Dubslow

"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3×29×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Graff I contacted the maintainer of that page and the imprecise statement has been replaced. Gareth
oooooooooooohhh thank you thank you this is so cool

2012-01-13, 05:40   #41

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

769210 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Graff Urm, no. One AU is the heliocentric distance at which a massless particle in a circular, unperturbed orbit would have a mean motion of k ( = 0.01720209895) radians/day.
Which would imply that the solar mass is constant.
Since the orbiting particle is massless, wouldn't the solar mass be irrelevant?

The massless particle is not being held in circular orbit by gravity, so we're using a bit of magic rather than Gm1m2 here. There may have been a moment when k = 0.01720209895 had a physical meaning, but it's just a defined constant now.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2012-01-13 at 05:46

2012-01-13, 13:14   #42
Brian-E

"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands

2·3·5·109 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cheesehead Since the orbiting particle is massless, wouldn't the solar mass be irrelevant?
By "massless" the definition presumably means that the mass of the orbiting body "tends to zero" so that only the sun's gravitational field should be considered. I guess there must be some complicating factor which would affect the orbital speed of a body of significant mass but I am unsure what this factor might be. Perhaps the definition is simply seeking to avoid the hypothetical situation where the body has comparable mass to the sun and then the two bodies are orbiting each other, complicating the measurements of radial speed? Or is there some other more subtle complicating effect if the orbiting body has significant mass?

2012-01-22, 02:13   #43
Fusion_power

Aug 2003
Snicker, AL

3BF16 Posts

Quote:
 There are other options, including the Gaussian year which, I've now learned or re-learned, is the basis for the A.U. - Xilman
This was an informative thread. I think we all learned quite a bit from it.

DarJones

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post dabaichi News 571 2020-10-26 11:02 jasong jasong 32 2014-01-04 07:50 aketilander Operazione Doppi Mersennes 1 2012-11-09 21:16 henryzz Math 7 2012-05-23 01:13 ATH Lounge 17 2011-01-21 23:28

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:26.

Sat Oct 23 05:26:30 UTC 2021 up 91 days, 23:55, 0 users, load averages: 1.23, 1.16, 1.13