Poetlister wrote:lonza leggiera wrote:In light
of the loophole provided by
WP:CALC, that's not at all clear to me. ...
The big problem with WP:CALC,
of course, is that what constitutes a "routine" calculation is highly dependent on who is doing
the calculating.
I think you've answered your own question. This is not a routine calculation. They took an extremely complex problem and produced, as they say, "a very simplified, dumbed down version". Deciding how to simplify, what approximations are adequate and how to present their solution are all far from routine.
Well, like I said, what constitutes a routine calculation depends on who is doing
the calculating. What Tom Peters actually wrote about "a very simplified, dumbed down version" was
the following:
Tom Peters on Wikipedia wrote:
The fact is that
the FMC article describes a very simplified, dumbed down version
of an algorithm [N.B. "algorithm",
not "extremely complex problem"] published by
Jean Meeus (T-H-L) in his Astronomical Formulae for Calculators (ca. 1980) and his Astronomical Algorithms (1991, 1992, 1998), which I do cite as
the reference in
the FMC article.
link
The "algorithm" referred to by Peters actually comprises at least two algorithms—one for calculating
the times
of the Moon's phases, and
the other for calculating
the times
of its apogees and perigees. Both algorithms consist
of nothing more than evaluating sums
of a polynomial
of degree
four and sinusoidal terms whose amplitudes and arguments are likewise polynomials
of degree at most
four. They are not very complicated at all, let alone "extremely complicated". While their implementations might not be routine for
the average squabble
of Wikipedians, I can assure you they
are quite straightforward, and routine,
for me.
What I would
not claim to be routine
for me, are
the calculations needed to check
the material in
the last two sections,
Full moon cycle and the saros - using the FMC for predicting eclipses and
Use of full moon cycle in predicting new and full_moons,
of the final version
of the article. I am insufficiently familar with some
of the necessary astronomical concepts to be able to make that claim. I suspect, however, that
the necessary calculations
would be
quite routine for most professional astronomers, or even for some serious amateur astronomers.
The first three sections
of that final version
of the article are a different matter, however. I
am sufficiently familiar with
the elementary astronomical concepts necessary for
the calculations needed to check those sections to be quite routine
for me. Besides parts
of the exposition's being woeful, there remains an elementary blunder perpetrated by
the following edits:
Contributor from IP adress 167.202.196.71 on Wikipedia wrote:
[Highlighting
of differences added]
The orbit
period (T-H-L) of the Moon from perigee to apogee and back to perigee is called
the anomalistic month (T-H-L), and its average duration is:
AM = 27.55454988 days
Full moons repeat in a cycle called
synodic month (T-H-L), and it has an average duration
of:
SM = 29.53058885 days
in place of
The orbit
period (T-H-L) of the Moon from perigee to apogee and back to perigee is called
the anomalistic month (T-H-L), and its average duration is:
AM = 27.55455 days
Full moons repeat in a cycle called
synodic month (T-H-L), and it has an average duration
of:
SM = 29.530589 days
link
I suspect, but am by no means sure, that
the "
TP" in
the edit summary
of the above edit was intended to indicate that
the contributor was, in fact, Tom Peters.
Tom Peters on Wikipedia wrote:
[Highlighting
of differences added]
The average duration
of the anomalistic month is:
AM = 27.55454988 days (see Meeus (1991) eq. 48.1)
The synodic month has an average duration
of:
SM = 29.530588853 days (see Meeus (1991) eq. 47.1)
in place of
The average duration
of the anomalistic month is:
AM = 27.55454988 days
The synodic month has an average duration
of:
SM = 29.53058885
link
What Meeus's formulas actually tell us is that
the quantities, 27.55454988 and 29.53058885 days are
the Moon's anomalistic and synodic periods, respecitively, accurate to
the number
of decimal places given,
at the turn of this century, but also that over
the last 17 years
the anomalistic period has been decreasing by about 10
-8 days per year and
the synodic period increasing by about 2 x 10
-9 days per year. Thus,
the eighth and last decimal place
of the anomalistic period will have already changed within not more than a year after
the turn
of the century, and
the ninth and last decimal place
of the synodic period within not more than six months after it. By
the beginning
of 2003,
the year in which
the first
of the above-cited edits was made,
the anomalistic period had fallen to 27.55454985 days, and
the synodic period risen to 29.530588860. On
the other hand,
the less precise values for these quantities, 27.55455 and 29.530589 days, respectively, replaced by
the anonymous editor with
the first
of the above edits, will—according to Meeus's formulas—remain accurate to
the number
of decimal places given until about 2270 and 2300, respectively
These edits therefore don't inspire much confidence in
the technical quality
of the rest
of the article.
E voi, piuttosto che le nostre povere gabbane d'istrioni, le nostr' anime considerate. Perchè siam uomini di carne ed ossa, e di quest' orfano mondo, al pari di voi, spiriamo l'aere.
