Help with formula to calculate the precession rate change

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion revolves around calculating the precession rate variation related to the Precession of the Equinox using specific formulas. The user references Simon Newcomb's formula from 1900 and an alternative formula based on a proposed binary system model. The calculated precession rate for the year 2100 using the alternative formula yields 50.275935”/y, while the expected value is 50.325866”/y. A potential typo in the alternative formula is suggested as the source of the discrepancy, indicating that it should be 50.29522... instead.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of astronomical precession concepts
  • Familiarity with orbital mechanics and velocity changes
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical calculations involving formulas
  • Awareness of historical astronomical data and formulas, particularly Simon Newcomb's contributions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of precession on celestial mechanics
  • Study the historical context and accuracy of Simon Newcomb's precession formula
  • Explore the effects of binary star systems on orbital dynamics
  • Learn about the calculation of precession rates using modern astronomical software tools
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, students of celestial mechanics, and anyone interested in the mathematical modeling of astronomical phenomena will benefit from this discussion.

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
 
Astronomy 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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
19K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
29K