Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AstroLynx (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 20 May 2016 (again!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Time Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Article

File:== Golden Numbers == ??

This should not be merged with "metonic cycle." The term Golden Number is still commonly used in Anglicanism, and is printed in tables in the Book of Common Prayer, in reference to the computus of Easter, with no reference or correlation to the Metonic Cycle.

The Golden Number of any year is the same in both the Catholic and Anglican versions of the modern calendar. From a practical point of view, they are one and the same concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.76.3 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The years, months, days of the month, and days of the week in the English civil calendar are for all practical purposes identical to the like-named or -numbered years, months, days of the month, and days of the week in the Gregorian calendar. Even the discrepancy regarding whether Feb. 24 or Feb. 29 is regarded as the leap day in a leap year has been tidied up (IIRC, the Catholic Church took care of this several years ago; Feb. 29 is now the leap day). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.76.3 (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Golden Number

An encyclopaedia should give the true definition. The UK Act and Prayer Book (q.v.) have words corresponding to

 GN := (Y+1) mod 19 ; if GN=0 then GN := 19 ;

Of course, that and

 GN := Y mod 19 + 1 ;

are fully equivalent, and the latter should also appear since it is the better way to calculate it. It's not clear to me whether Clavius gave either of those; he has a tabular method good for A.D. 1 to 899999999. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

On deeper scrutiny, the final paragraph of Clavius' Canon 1 does give, in words, the Act/Book method - Et fi ex divifione nihil remanet, erit Aureus numerus 19.. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In the above quotation, I believe 'fi' and 'divifione' would better be rendered as 'si' and 'divisione', as the 'f' character in each word will be a 'long s' in the original printing. Fergus Wilde (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Metonic cycle- golden number- another point of fact-Dr. N. N. Chandra.

I recently read that Metonic cycle was known to Brahmins from a very long period back. At least as far back as Kali Yuga i.e. 3102 BCE. The reference can be found in Cassini as quoted by Baily in his classic work "Indian Astronomy" published in 1787. As a matter of fact John Playfair in his book "Works of John Playfair" published in 1822 recalculates Cassini's method and concludes that the golden number of Brahmins was more accurate than given by Metonic cycle. Brahmins still use the number based on 19 solar years equal to 233 lunar years in dating festivals in their calendars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.182.222 (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

John Playfair does not mention any golden number in his "Astronomy of the Brahmins", pages 91–175 of The Works of John Playfair (1822). Nor is any 19-year cycle mentioned. Nor does he attribute any cycle to either Bailly (Traité de l'astronomie indienne et orientale) or Cassini. He dismisses one cycle by stating "It is indeed remarkable, that we find no trace of the period of 6585 days and 8 hours, or 223 lunations, the Saros of the Chaldean astonomers, which they employed for the prediction of eclipses" (p.171).

I assume that anonymous meant to write "19 solar years equal to lunar ". I am not aware of any 19-year cycle in either the Hindu calendar or in its astronomical basis, the Surya Siddhanta. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hildegard of Bingen and the Golden Number

I have deleted the claim of Hildegard of Bingen's knowledge of the Golden Number. Although the "aureus numerus" is indeed mentioned in her Ordo Virtutum it has nothing to do with calendars but rather refers to the completion of the ten heavenly choirs. AstroLynx (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Unassessed Time articles
• Unknown-importance Time articles