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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JeffOCA
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equator Mean Sun
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the "mean sun" and its movement along the celestial equator versus the ecliptic. Participants explore the implications of using a mean sun for timekeeping, particularly in relation to Earth's axial tilt and orbital characteristics. The conversation touches on historical definitions of the mean sun and the evolution of timekeeping methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the mean sun moves along the celestial equator to provide a constant rate for clocks, contrasting this with the potential for a mean sun moving along the ecliptic, which would require projection.
  • There is a suggestion that using a mean sun along the ecliptic could simplify calculations related to the equation of time, as it would only need to account for Earth's elliptical orbit.
  • One participant references the historical context of the mean sun's definition, indicating it was based on the Earth's orbit from 1960 to 1967, and questions the rationale for switching to a mean sun along the equator thereafter.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the concept of a mean sun moving along the ecliptic and speculates on its implications for averaging Earth's orbit.
  • Discussion includes the notion that the fictitious mean sun helps remove daily rotation and nutations from Earth's orientation, focusing on long-term precession, which is relevant for astronomers.
  • Some participants mention the transition to atomic clocks as a more stable timekeeping mechanism compared to previous systems based on Earth's rotation and orbit.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the advantages and disadvantages of using a mean sun along the equator versus the ecliptic. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the best approach or the reasons behind historical changes in definitions.

Contextual Notes

There are references to historical definitions and the evolution of timekeeping methods, indicating that the discussion may be influenced by varying interpretations of the mean sun's role and the complexities of celestial mechanics.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 142 ·
5
Replies
142
Views
140K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K