Why Do We Use a Mean Sun That Moves Along the Equator Instead of the Ecliptic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JeffOCA
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equator Mean Sun
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the use of a "mean sun" that moves along the celestial equator rather than the ecliptic due to Earth's axial tilt. This choice simplifies timekeeping by providing a constant rate for clocks, avoiding the need for complex projections associated with the ecliptic. The mean sun was defined in relation to the Earth's orbit from 1960 to 1967, but this system had its drawbacks, leading to a shift in 1967 to the equatorial model. The fictitious mean sun helps astronomers account for Earth's rotation and orientation, streamlining various coordinate systems and timekeeping methods. Ultimately, atomic clocks have emerged as the most reliable timekeeping mechanism, further simplifying the process.
JeffOCA
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Due to Earth's axial tilt, the Sun's annual motion is along the ecliptic that is tilted to Earth's celestial equator.
When the Sun crosses the equator at both equinoxes or solstices, the Sun's daily shift is at an angle to the equator, so we have to do the projection of this shift onto the equator.

We like our clocks to run at a constant rate, so we cannot set them to follow the actual sun—instead they will follow a nonexistent object called the "mean sun" that moves along the celestial equator at a constant rate that matches the real sun's average rate over the year.

Question is : why introducing a mean sun moving along the equator instead of a mean sun moving along the ecliptic ? Moving along the ecliptic needs to do a projection.
With a mean sun moving along the ecliptic, no need for projection, only one effect remains in the computation of the equation of time : Earth's elliptical orbit.

In this way, it would be easier, no ?

Thanks
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
JeffOCA said:
We like our clocks to run at a constant rate, so we cannot set them to follow the actual sun—instead they will follow a nonexistent object called the "mean sun" that moves along the celestial equator at a constant rate that matches the real sun's average rate over the year.

Question is : why introducing a mean sun moving along the equator instead of a mean sun moving along the ecliptic ? Moving along the ecliptic needs to do a projection.
With a mean sun moving along the ecliptic, no need for projection, only one effect remains in the computation of the equation of time : Earth's elliptical orbit.

In this way, it would be easier, no ?
The second was defined in terms of the Earth's orbit for a brief period of time, from 1960 to 1967. While a system based on the Earth's orbit is better than a system based on the Earth's daily rotation, there are still problems with such a system.

Far easier, and far more accurate, is to use atomic clocks. Atomic clocks have been the mechanism used to define time since 1967.
 
D H said:
The second was defined in terms of the Earth's orbit for a brief period of time, from 1960 to 1967. While a system based on the Earth's orbit is better than a system based on the Earth's daily rotation, there are still problems with such a system.

You mean that mean sun was (by definition) moving along the ecliptic from 1960 to 1967 : i didn't know, thanks !
So, why we have changed the definition to make a mean sun moving along equator in 1967 ?

Thanks
 
JeffOCA said:
You mean that mean sun was (by definition) moving along the ecliptic from 1960 to 1967
I'm trying to get a mental handle on what this mean sun moving along the ecliptic could even mean. I can't. Perhaps averaging out the Earth's orbit about the Earth-Moon barycenter?

The fictitious mean sun is a mechanism that removes the daily rotation and various nutations from the Earth's angular orientation, leaving only the long-term precession terms. It is inherently based on the rotating rather than orbiting Earth. Astronomers need to know the Earth's orientation because almost all telescopes are on the rotating Earth.

This fictitious mean sun, and other fictitious mean concepts, led to a confusing number of coordinate systems and time keeping mechanisms. Fortunately, much of that baggage has been abandoned. Every once in a while I still run across people who prefer to use true of date coordinates, mean of date coordinates, mean of 50 coordinates, ecliptic coordinates, etc. That has all pretty much gone by the wayside with the development of the International Celestial Reference Frame. Those who insist on using those older standards are now quite old themselves. They are retiring in droves. The weird stew of coordinates employed from 1895 to 1984 will soon be just a historical curiosity.

Time, too, has been simplified. Atomic clocks are a much more stable timekeeping mechanism than are either the Earth's rotation about its axis or its orbit about the Sun.
 
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Asteroid, Data - 1.2% risk of an impact on December 22, 2032. The estimated diameter is 55 m and an impact would likely release an energy of 8 megatons of TNT equivalent, although these numbers have a large uncertainty - it could also be 1 or 100 megatons. Currently the object has level 3 on the Torino scale, the second-highest ever (after Apophis) and only the third object to exceed level 1. Most likely it will miss, and if it hits then most likely it'll hit an ocean and be harmless, but...
Back
Top