Undergrad Help with formula to calculate the precession rate change

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the precession rate variation related to the Precession of the Equinox. A formula is referenced that suggests a yearly change of approximately 0.000349”/y, indicating an increase in precession as the Sun approaches periapsis. The user attempts to apply this formula to predict the precession rate for the year 2100 but arrives at a different result than expected. A potential typo in the original formula is suggested, which could explain the discrepancy in calculations. The conversation highlights the complexities of precession calculations and the importance of accurate formulas in astrophysical contexts.
phi
First time caller, I'm a newb so go easy on me.

So I was trying to work through a calculation to figure out the precession rate variation in terms of the Precession of the Equinox.

I came across the following formula from (https://endgametime.wordpress.com/understanding-precession-of-the-equinox/)

I quote:

If we are moving away from apoapsis as proposed, our orbital velocity should be increasing – we are speeding up with respect to the binary center of mass – which means that the period of revolution perceived over astronomically short periods of time is decreasing; this in turn requires the constant of precession to increase as time goes by. Currently the yearly change is about 0.000349”/y, but that will continue to increase for a few more years, until the Sun reaches periapsis. In terms of the calculated period of revolution, that corresponds to a yearly decrease of .178 years, ignoring the short cyclic influences of nutation, etc. This roughly corresponds with the changes in precession calculations that have been reported in the literature.

Therefore, we make the following estimates for the years 2011:

Year Precession

Period of Revolution (years)

2010 50.24”/y

25,792.035

2100 50.325866”/y

25792.164

In 1900, Simon Newcomb offered a formula for precession: 50.2564” + 0.000222 * (year – 1900) (U.S. Naval Observatory 1900)

We offer the following alternative formula based on the proposed binary system model: 50.245223” – 0.000349 * (2012- year)

Observed precession has changed by 0.0337 from 1900 to 2000, for a yearly change of 0.000337” . This precession delta is approximately ten times closer to our proposed annual precession of 0.000349” than Newcomb’s annual precession adjustment of 0.000222”.

Minimum precession is about 1 degree every 84 years when the Sun is at apoapsis, and the maximum precession is about one degree every 71.665 years when the Sun is near periapsis. The Earth will average about one degree of precession per 77.83 years over the 24,000 year cycle.

I tried using their formula to calculate the precession rate at year 2100
as above (50.245223” – 0.000349 * (2012- year))

So I used:

50.245223 - .000349 * (2012 - 2100)

50.245223 - .000349 * -88

50.245223 - -0.030712

I get = 50.275935

Their answer above though is: 50.325866”/y

I cannot for the life of me figure out what I am doing wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated, starting to lose my mind :-)

Thanks!
Φ
 
Physics news on Phys.org
phi said:
First time caller, I'm a newb so go easy on me.

So I was trying to work through a calculation to figure out the precession rate variation in terms of the Precession of the Equinox.

I came across the following formula from (https://endgametime.wordpress.com/understanding-precession-of-the-equinox/)

I quote:

If we are moving away from apoapsis as proposed, our orbital velocity should be increasing – we are speeding up with respect to the binary center of mass – which means that the period of revolution perceived over astronomically short periods of time is decreasing; this in turn requires the constant of precession to increase as time goes by. Currently the yearly change is about 0.000349”/y, but that will continue to increase for a few more years, until the Sun reaches periapsis. In terms of the calculated period of revolution, that corresponds to a yearly decrease of .178 years, ignoring the short cyclic influences of nutation, etc. This roughly corresponds with the changes in precession calculations that have been reported in the literature.

Therefore, we make the following estimates for the years 2011:

Year Precession

Period of Revolution (years)

2010 50.24”/y

25,792.035

2100 50.325866”/y

25792.164

In 1900, Simon Newcomb offered a formula for precession: 50.2564” + 0.000222 * (year – 1900) (U.S. Naval Observatory 1900)

We offer the following alternative formula based on the proposed binary system model: 50.245223” – 0.000349 * (2012- year)

Observed precession has changed by 0.0337 from 1900 to 2000, for a yearly change of 0.000337” . This precession delta is approximately ten times closer to our proposed annual precession of 0.000349” than Newcomb’s annual precession adjustment of 0.000222”.

Minimum precession is about 1 degree every 84 years when the Sun is at apoapsis, and the maximum precession is about one degree every 71.665 years when the Sun is near periapsis. The Earth will average about one degree of precession per 77.83 years over the 24,000 year cycle.

I tried using their formula to calculate the precession rate at year 2100
as above (50.245223” – 0.000349 * (2012- year))

So I used:

50.245223 - .000349 * (2012 - 2100)

50.245223 - .000349 * -88

50.245223 - -0.030712

I get = 50.275935

Their answer above though is: 50.325866”/y

I cannot for the life of me figure out what I am doing wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated, starting to lose my mind :-)

Thanks!
Φ
If you use their formula to calculate the value for 1900 it comes out too low. I suspect a typo: their formula should be 50.29522...
 
Awesome that would explain it! Thanks so much for the reply!
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
18K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
28K