Talk:Axial precession

message: The astronomical formulas I have seen appear to be based on working back from known observational data (e.g., the earth's precession around the Ecliptic Pole, the Anomalous Precession period, the Lunisolar Precession period, Apsidal (Perihelion) Precession and the "Mercury Question", etc.).
Is there an actual standard formula that exists to calculate precession?  Specifically, one that allows the user to enter applicable values (mass of the bodies, distance, orbital period, rotation period, obliquity, etc.), and come up with the precession value?  Such a formula should work with any given value (including values given for any hypotheical planetary system).
Unless such a formula exists in the scientific community, I tend to agree with those who hint that determining Precession remains an open-ended mystery (at least regarding both its cause and its affect outside calculations based on direct observation).
Granted, any standard formula would only be accurate to so-many decimal places (due to not being able to account for ALL the multitude of minor gravitational influences from lesser bodies throughout any given system and beyond).  Nevertheless, if science has determined the true cause and affect of precession, then a standarized formula (with known-body input values)should exist.  Otherwise, any questioning mind may be justified in questioning the existing theories.
The many with greater knowledge may know of such a formula.  If so, may it be included on the Wiki page?  Oh ... and it would be super if it was written in a manner that is can be interpreted by mathematically limited individuals (who, me?!).  --Tesseract501 06:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My dear Tesseract501, thank you for understanding so well the problem of precession and I wish you a lot of success in your future researches. The fact that in front of this problem I am not alone anymore gives me a soul peace that will help me in my own researches. --Abel Cavași (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am adding a set of equations. — Joe Kress (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does a Precession Formula Exist? 

message: It's not very clear who these 'pre-modern' astronomers are supposed to have been, who called it the 'precession of the equinoxes'.  Plenty of sources show that up to about the end of the sixteenth century AD, which is pre-modern if you like, it was often called 'the motion of the eighth sphere' (e.g. 'De motu octavae sphaerae', I.Werner, Nuremberg, 1522).  'Precession of the equinoxes' is a _relatively_ modern term.
It's also not very clear that the term 'precession of the equinoxes is out of date, either. It's not equal to either the 'precession of the equator' or the 'precession of the ecliptic' -- it's the combined effect of the two of them together.  Is there a replacement terminology for that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.225.140 (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that in non-technical discussions (no detailed mathematics), precession of the equinoxes is still in use, which is one of the tweaks I am making. All of the terms now in the lead are in current use, but the motion of the eighth sphere, trepidation, and similar terms are not, so I don't think they belong in the lead. Of course, they do belong in the historical section. The technical replacement for precession of the equinoxes is general precession which is the combination of precession of the equator and precession of the ecliptic. It was not changed in 2006, so it was also the combination of lunisolar precession and planetary precession. — Joe Kress (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What pre-modern astronomers called it

message: Isn't the direction of the precession wrong in the picture? The angular momenta is supposed to be conserved and thus the precession must be in the same direction as the body is spining. Besides I actually found another copy of the same image on the internet with the correct direction of the precession.
Samuel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.175.92 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precession direction 

message: If the Earth's axis of rotation is orthogonally projected to the plane of the solar system, is the projected direction parallel to the major axis of the orbit?  If so, is there an explanation of such a phenomenon in gravitational terms? 132.70.50.117 (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The two are not parallel because the two precessions discussed in the article have different periods, the precession of Earth's rotational axis in inertial space and the precession of the major axis of Earth's orbit, also known as anomalistic precession (the last section in the article), which is the advance of the line of apsides (perihelion and aphelion). The projection of Earth's rotational axis onto its orbital plane is from/to the solstices (winter/summer), now about December 21/June 21. Conversely, the major axis of the orbit is from/to the apsides (perihelion/aphelion), now about January 3/July 5. The Gregorian calendar is "tuned" to the equinoxes and solstices, so their dates remain relatively fixed, even though their precession is 50.3"/year in inertial space. But the dates of the apsides move forward in the Gregorian calendar because they advance 11.6"/year in inertial space. The sum of 61.9"/year causes a relatively rapid calendrical advance. In terms of years, the average length of the Gregorian year is 365.2425 days which is nearest the vernal equinox year of 365.242374 days. The anomalistic year at 365.259636 days is even longer than the sidereal year. The lines were parallel about the year 1225 when the length of autumn equalled that of winter and spring equalled summer. The lines will be perpendicular about 3825 causing spring to equal autumn and causing the lengths of winter and summer to be maximally different. This is discussed in The Lengths of the Seasons (on Earth) by Irv Bromberg. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's very interesting.  Which of the two precessions is supposed to be explained by the equatorial bulge? 132.70.50.117 (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Earth's equatorial bulge interacts mainly with Moon, because its declination alternates between being north of and south of the equatorial bulge. This both causes and stabilizes the Earth axial wobble and tilt as well as the lunar orbital tilt. Lunar precession is much larger than planetary precession. Kalendis (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: When does the current precession cycle finishes? Echofloripa (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Precession never ends. It takes about 26,000 years for the vernal equinox to precess completely around the ecliptic (the apparent path of the Sun on the celestial sphere). At the same time Earth's axis precesses causing the celestial north pole to trace a circular path on the celestial sphere. So we can say that our current north star, Polaris, will cease to be the north star in only a thousand years and will not be the north star again until 26,000 years from now. You may be thinking of the position of the vernal equinox in specific zodiacal constellations. Because the ecliptic is astrologically divided into twelve constellations, the vernal equinox spends roughtly 2,150 years in each constellation. While the vernal equinox was in the constellation of Pisces, we were in the Age of Pisces. When precession causes the vernal equinox to move into the next zodiacal constellation, Aquarius, the Age of Aquarius begins. Astrologers differ on when this occurs, varying from 1447 AD to 3621 AD, although many think we entered the Age of Aquarius during the 20th century. Also see astrological age. — Joe Kress (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current precession cycle?

message: Zbayz changed the name of this article from "Precession (astronomy)" to "Axial precession (astronomy)" without any discussion whatsoever. His stated reason was "This article only discusses precession of the rotational axis. It says nothing about perhelion precession." both of which are wrong. Although the dominant focus of the article is 'axial precession' it does mention "planetary precession" now renamed "precession of the ecliptic" and "anomalistic precession". The proper name for 'axial precession' is either the old name "lunisolar precession" which was used for at least two centuries or its new name, since 2006, "precession of the equator". Furthermore, this article mentions "planetary precession" now renamed "precession of the ecliptic" which is the gradual change in the inclination of Earth's orbit relative to the invariable plane of the solar system and the combination of "precession of the equator" and "precession of the ecliptic" which is called "general precession" and has been so named for at least one and a half centuries. This article also has a section on "anomalistic precession" at the end of the article, which Zbayz calls "perihelion precession", but refers to an article named apsidal precession. 
Zbayz also did not follow Wikipedia naming conventions for disambiguating articles. Do not use a parenthetical qualifier unless two or more articles have the same name. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the different motions should have their own articles. Then we can call this one "precession of the equator". Zbayz (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Other thoughts: Since "ecliptic" is about the Earth, "precession of the ecliptic" doesn't seem a very good name for variation in the orbital inclination of celestial objects in general. Also the phrase "anomalistic precession" seems to be hardly used at all. Zbayz (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: I suggest to split out astronomic scientific material of this article and through out pseudoscience astrological data. There is no reasons to cover both this topics in the article. Astrology - is a cultural phenomenon, not the science. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.136.138 (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomy/Astrology splitting suggestion 

message: This image, currently shown at the top of the page, is confusing in that the rotation of the axis is shown to be in the same direction as the spin of the planet.  A reading of the description (click on the image to go to the image page and see the summary below) reveals that the axial rotation shown in this image is "relative to the direction to the Sun at perihelion and aphelion", (ie. it relates to orbital precession - even though the orbit is not shown), rather than axial precession, the title of this page.  The commonly understood meaning of the unqualified term "precession" is axial precession relative to the fixed stars, where it moves counter to the spin (hence the term PREcession, rather than PROcession).
This image appears here:  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=541  with the words "orbital precession" at the top.  Why have these words been removed?  Is someone purposefully trying to confuse here? TomNicholson (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The image Earth precession as originally uploaded in 2008 showed the correct CW precession, but Mysid thought it wrong so he uploaded an incorrect CCW image in 2009. I reverted to the original image for the reason I explained at File talk:Earth precession.svg, so the image at the top of this article now shows the correct CW precession. I have also corrected the file's description, which was indeed wrong, because axial precession has nothing whatsoever to do with orbital precession, also called apsidal precession. I don't know why NASA Earth Observatory has an erroneous CCW precession image on its site. Ironically, the associated animation shows a correct CW precession. — Joe Kress (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image: Earth_precession.svg‎ 

message: I would edit this section directly if it were not for the fact that the image has errors, and I don't have a replacement.
The vertical cyan (pale blue) arrows and the yellow arrows (shown at the equator) indicating the torque should not be present at the equinoxes - the symmetry of the earth-sun relationship at the equinoxes (and hence the lack of torque) is more clearly seen if the orbital motion (which is irrelevant) is ignored, or with reference to the first equation in the following section where it is seen that the torque vanishes at the equinoxes when delta (and sine delta) become zero.  This is mentioned in the text: "The magnitude of the torque from the sun (or the moon) varies with the gravitational object's alignment with the earth's spin axis and approaches zero when it is orthogonal" - that is, at the equinoxes.
Is anyone else bothered by the statement, "This average torque is perpendicular to the direction in which the rotation axis is tilted away from the ecliptic pole, so that it does not change the axial tilt itself"?  It is the axis of the average torque which is perpendicular to the direction in which the rotation axis is tilted away from the ecliptic pole, and I don't believe it is obvious why this does not change the axial tilt itself.  Actually, the "force" of the torque tends to "want" to lessen the axial tilt - a tendency which is thwarted due to the (counter-intuitive) properties of spinning objects.  If at this point you think I'm completely crazy :) then try the following ...
Take a bicycle wheel (minus the bike) and hold the spindle in your hands so that your arms are like the front forks of the bike.  Spin the wheel.  Now (carefully!) try and change the axis of rotation.  Weird, isn't it?!
TomNicholson (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the image is wrong. The cyan arrows are all wrong, too. I think the author of the image had a misconception of how precession works. I'll try to get the image deleted for now, but it would be nice to have a replacement. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in the "Cause" section of the article (still!) 

message: The Introduction mentions a period of 26,000 years and a cone of unspecified size and direction.
A cone is not necessarily circular.
I think that it would be well to indicate, in the introduction (but not necessarily in these terms), that the direction of the Earth's axis of rotation moves in a circle of radius 23.5° about the Earth's orbital axis ; and that the current direction of motion is approximately along a line from Polaris towards some other well-known star. The one which it will be near in AD 4000 might suit ; perhaps in Cepheus, probably Gamma, I think - or maybe use the Great Square.
The circularity and size are present, buried lower down.
82.163.24.100 (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Introduction 

message: Could someone perhaps take a look at the related Great Year article?
A number of questionable edits have been made recently. The new "Confusion of the Platonic Year with Precession" section may be of particular concern. Pollinosisss (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Year 

message: In 12,850 years, will the date of the vernal equinox in the Northern Hemisphere still be March 20th or will it be October 20th?  Why has the date decreased from March 22nd a century ago to March 20th now?  Keraunos (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Gregorian calendar for information on how accurately that calender preserves the position of the vernal equinox. The Gregorian calendar corrects the problems with the Julian calendar by omitting a leap year in centurial years, unless the centurial year is evenly divisible by 400. So this correction was done in 1900, but not in 2000. If you only look at the period between 1910 and 2009, the Gregorian calendar behaves like the Julian calendar. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Does this chart help? —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Irv Bromberg (Sym454.org) has calculated the drift of the equinox for several calendars (many proposed) at Leap cycle drift relative to the northward equinox, where the upper black line is the equinox drift of the Gregorian calendar. Assuming it continues linearly (a dangerous assumption), there will be about eight days of drift, meaning that the vernal equinox will occur eight days earlier than it does now, about March 12, in 13,000 years. The almost vertical dashed red line shows the rapid drift of the equinox in the Julian calendar, which drifted about ten days in only 1,300 years between roughly AD 300 and AD 1600. This shows that any fixed arithmetic calendar, that is, a calendar that adds a day, week or month at regular intervals, is useless beyond a few thousand years, at least for keeping the vernal equinox near some spcific date. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of vernal equinox inquiry

message: If the article is going to discuss Mithraism in detail, it might as well give a nod to "tropical astrology" vs. "sidereal astrology" and the so-called "Age of Aquarius"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional relevant astrology links

message: The Articles INTRODUCTION is overly complex and therefore poorly explained .The diagrams a bewildering to none-astronomers.Is this the object of wikipedia?
A celestial sphere, the sun at the centre with a zodiac ring drawn as a band on the sphere,  would be a better introduction.This would: (a)  Root the observations to a fairly universally known (and therefore familiar) set of coordinates.  (b) Remove the visual confusion  (c) Allow for a clear intersection planes to be inscribed on the sphere.
I would butte in a fix it myself but its really up to those most impassioned in this debate.Anyway were does a layman get the computer program to generate the diagrams?Ha!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasludo (talk • contribs) 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting for Simplified Introduction 

message: I moved Cuvier's 1825 estimate (recently added by Hmschallenger) to the Middle Ages onwards section, at least temporarily. It certainly does not belong in the Hipparchus section just because it uses observations by Hipparchus. It should be in a "modern estimates" section which currently does not exist. A good start would be Evolution of adopted values for precession by Jay H. Lieske. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern estimates of precession 

message: I cannot see a credit at
  http://www.crystalinks.com/precession.html
to this article.
There is a simple one link on a line by itself that is labeled "wikipedia" but no indication that the article is copied.  The link is not labeled "orginal wikipedia article" or the like.  I cannot see that the mere label "wikipedia" constitutes either a reference or credit and the owner appears to have a commercial site (psychic this or astrological that)
In the case of 
  http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Precession_of_the_equinoxes
there is a fine print credit to wikipedia without actually naming this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many sites that use material from Wikipedia do not give adequate credit to Wikipedia. Both of the sites you mention give at least some credit to Wikipedia. The Crystalinks site used the images from an old version of this article but the text is mostly their own. The Wikipedia link they give is to the current version of this article. The Opentopia site is basically a Wikipedia mirror. They also give a pointer to the current version of this article. — Joe Kress (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article used without reference or credit 

message: Right now, this page redirects from Axial precession. But since there is no other type of axial precession, there doesn't appear to be a need for a qualifier at the end. Serendipodous 18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be no other article, but a gyroscope on a stand will precess. —Tamfang (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was entitled precession of the equinoxes by Ewlyahoocom when he separated it from precession (where it still has a section now entitled Axial precession (precession of the equinoxes)) on 7 April 2006. On 8 May 2007 The way, the truth, and the light moved it to precession (astronomy) before he renamed the section climatic effects to anomalistic precession. (Where is the move log?) I added several related terms to the lead on 28 February 2009 (general precession, lunisolar precession, planetary precession, precession of the ecliptic, precession of the equator). Zbayz then moved this article to axial precession (astronomy) on 23 August 2009 because he said that it said nothing about perihelion precession. After I noted that both precession of the equator and anomalistic precession were discussed, he moved the anomalistic precession section to apsidal precession). I objected to his move of this article at Name change above, but I couldn't think of a better name so I did not attempt to move it again. Even though I prefer one of the other names I added, a Google search shows that precession of the equinoxes is far and away (100 times) more popular than any other term. Because this article is overwhelming about that part of the astronomical subject, I recommend that it be moved back to precession of the equinoxes. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: By consequence, the constellation is no longer visible from subtropical northern latitudes, as it was in the time of the ancient Greeks.
How are we defining 'subtropical northern latitudes' here?  Because I'm at about 25N, and I can see the top half of the Southern Cross from my driveway, 'in the city', when it's a sufficiently clear night.  Around March, to be specific.  I imagine it's a much better view in the Keys, with the clearer horizons.
I am hesitant to revise that line without either the original justification for it referenced, or what documentation on my part would be appropriate.
Corgi (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Cross reference 

message: User:TomNicholson would have us believe that precession and procession are opposites, which is news to me.  The two words come respectively from (the Latin ancestors of) precede, 'go before (something else)', and proceed, 'go forward'.  Let's either have some support for the claim or delete the new section asserting it. —Tamfang (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably best to delete the entire section added by Polestar101. The first part is Ptolemy's view, so it really belongs in the Ptolemy section, but without the neologism "procession" and provided that it is mentioned that Ptolemy regarded the equinoxes as fixed points on the celestial sphere, causing the stars to move toward the rear compared to their diurnal motion. The last part is wrong. I checked several mechanics and physics texts and all agree, without exception, that precession in the motion of the axis of rotation, that is, the "observable". None regard precession as either a "cause" or "mechanical process". — Joe Kress (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROcession 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Precession animation small.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: What angle is the cone made by Earth's rotational axis in the first illustration? The article begs the question. Maybe add it to that first illustration. I'm still not sure, my best guess is 23DEG based on the article.
Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the article says: . Please feel free to edit the article to make this more clear, if that is what you meant. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  angle of precession-cone 

message: From the introduction: "...although evidence from cuneiform tablets suggest that his [Hipparchus'] statements and mathematics relied heavily on Babylonian astronomical materials that had existed for many centuries prior..." It'd be great to have a source for this to reference. The History material later in the article doesn't provide a source for this either. Any ideas anyone? Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuneiform claim is unsourced 

message: The illustration shows the axial precession of the Earth.  Looking at it it would appear to me that half way through, the Earth is tilted the opposite way from the beginning of the circle and in that case summer would be reversed (if at the beginning of a cycle, summer is June 21 - Sep 21 or so in the northern hemisphere, then half way through the cycle June 21 - Spe 21 would be winter in the northern hemisphere).  I suppose that is not true but that is how it looks doesn't it?
== tc
:The reason it doesn’t is that the calendar is designed to keep pace with the Sun’s apparent motion with respect to the Earth’s axis. If we referred it to the fixed stars instead, the situation would be as you describe: a 29-ka ‘great year’ marked by a creeping rotation of the seasons through the whole calendar. What does happen is that the seasonal ‘starscape’ slowly changes with the precession cycle; around the XIII millennium BCE, from a given latitude, the present-day summer constellations were most prominent in the winters.—Odysseus1479 00:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, according to our article on the topic, Apsis. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation 

message: The blending of art and science greatly hinders each and every scientific discipline that is contaminated. I wish there was a more gentle word, other than "contaminate,"  because imagination and creativity are crucial traits for a species to have, however, when the line that separates what we know from what we think, gets blurred, we eventually get flat out false assumptions accepted by the masses as truth. The precession of Astronomers and Astrophysicists from sort of right to completely wrong and then back to almost accurate observations is the only thing that occurs. And if Astronomers and Astrophysicists could be honest enough to just admit the things that we don't know with scientific certainty, so that it doesn't get confused with things we know with certainty, We wouldn't be so lost and argumentative with Our knowledge of how things work. Scientists do not debate like this, peer review does not mean hold a debate to discern the Truth. And this subject is a perfect example of the nonsense that gets accepted as fact. These subjects are why the world still, to this day, believes the Moon causes the tides of Our Oceans, or that Our Solar System is hurdling outward in a straight line which fools somehow think proves the expansion of space. The ego of men and the feeble minds which encourages arguing for one exaggerated false claim over another, and Our allowing foolish men and their false theories to be accepted as facts, has severely hindered humane beings' ability to understand this world. And that is sad. -Dirtclustit (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blending of art and science 

message: It seems to me very questionable if the section "Mithraic question" belongs here at the present length, or at all. At least most of it is wholly outside the topic. It is not even known whether Mithraic Mysteries had anything to do with the precession at all; it is just the wiev of one scholar. It belongs rather to the article Mithraic Mysteries, which this question actually is handled. In this article, a much shorter mentioning of this hypothesis would be enough, but of course, there should be a link to the article Mithraic Mysteries.
Indeed, that section could be replaced with a more general one, with headline "Astrological, mythological and religious interpretations", or "Effects on astrolgical beliefs and religions", or something like that. There namely are (or have been) quite a few religious beliefs which have at least sometimes been interpreted as inspired by the fact of precession; Mithraic mysteries are just one example among others. According to some scholars (as I have somewhere read, I do not remember where), even the fish (Ikhthus) as an early Christian symbol, generally thought to be just an acronym, might have been inspired by the fact that what astrologers call "Age of Pisces" (Fishes) had begun just a little before the time of Jesus. -KLS (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In this article, such beliefs are mentioned briefly at the end of the section Effects and handled in detail in the article Astrological Age, which, of course, is where they belong. But in this article there was no link to that article, and so I added one. Although such beliefs are fully unscientific, they have been and still are so widespread that they should be mentioned even here, at least briefly. But I think the section "Mithraic question" is still out of place here, but the question could be handled in Astrological Age, maybe in the section "Age of Pisces" or as a separate section. -KLS (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many unscientific beliefs such as Mithraic beliefs etc are studied by academics (archeo-astronomers, cultural historians, religious historians etc) and many people are interested in subjects like these, but I agree that such topics do not belong on this page and should either be included in the Astroligical Ages and/or other pages. Terry Macro (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm totally with you here. One could boil down all of this to one or two sentances IF it really relates significantly to this subject at all.
IceDragon64 (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mithraic question 

message: I would like to see some graphic which depicts the Earth's inclination in relation to the sun when Vega is the pole star in another 12,000 or so years.  Vega will have scarcely changed its relation to our solar system in this time (in fact, it is reputed to be moving directly towards us, and we towards it).  But Vega lies (now) at a current astronomical latitude of about 39°N., some 50+° away from Polaris.  Given that the angle of obliquity, when doubled, equals this 50° more or less, and Vega is completely on the other side of the path through the heavens described by the polar axis, my comment could perhaps be labelled correctly as an inability to visualize what the future inclination of the planet will be.    However, I can conceive that significant changes in which areas of the Earth would come directly under the sun, and also that the yearly periods of their being under the sun would change drastically.  Would the angle of obliquity of the axis always remain between ~24° and ~21°?  Obviously the apparent positions of the stars in the skies will change, as they have changed before, but I would like to read something from a knowledgable source about what this means in relation to apparent latitude of the sun as seen from different areas of Earth.  A good graphic would help.  Not meant to be a criticism of any one or any theory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Sparkman (talk • contribs) 09:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precession and Poleward Pointing to the Star Vega 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Axial precession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.instituteofmayastudies.org/Milbrath2012.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615160717/http://www.tenspheres.com:80/researches/precession.htm to http://www.tenspheres.com/researches/precession.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Axial precession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529074218/http://www.aanda.org:80/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2004/46/aa1335/aa1335.html to http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2004/46/aa1335/aa1335.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715044302/http://mathdl.maa.org/convergence/1/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=962&bodyId=1147 to http://mathdl.maa.org/convergence/1/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=962&bodyId=1147
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think this paragraph is probably written by somebody who already fully understands the Indian references, but doesn't make much sense to me.  I'm sorry I can't do it myself, but in order to gain much information from it, it needs to be fully translated into scientific English.
IceDragon64 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that reviewing Hindu calendars might help, but they assume that precession doesn't exist, basing both the lunisolar and "solar" calendar years on the sidereal year. Only the 1955 reformed calendar, the Indian National Calendar, uses the tropical year, based entirely on modern knowledge. The Indian views presented in the article are those of only one writer, Bhāskar-II, which implies that Indian numerical values for precession are rare. This section comes almost verbatim from "Ayanamsha vs Precession: New Light on Ancient Wisdom". It will take a lot of research to improve this section. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Bhāskar-II was an anomaly in that he believed in precession. Virtually all Indian astronomers, before and after, believed in trepidation. Wikipedia's article on Trepidation has an excellent summary of the Indian view as presented in the Surya Siddhanta (chapter iii, verses 9–12), the most respected of all Indian astronomical treatises. — Joe Kress (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I revised the section on September 24, 2019. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Views 

message: The Standard Gravitational Parameter is usually given as µ (lower-case Greek mu) rather than Gm or GM.
I'm reluctant to make an arbitrary edit for fear of hurting readability/usability of the formulae.
My citation for making this statement is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravitational_parameter.
216.145.100.72 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right to make that change. Someone wishing to find how µ is derived can do so at the already-linked Standard gravitational parameter page. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard Gravitational Parameter 

message: Article missing constellation list earth precision pass trougth:
Ursa Minor
Draco
Hercules
Lyra
Cygnus
Cepheus
Axet (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  constellation List 

message: The 3rd image on the page, provided by user Cmglee, appears to illustrate Apsidal Precession, the variation of Perihelion and Aphelion over an approximate 20,000 year cycle, rather than Axial Precession, which varies with an approximate 26,000 year cycle.
--George Fergus (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image illustrates Apsidal Precession over time rather than Axial Precession 

message: Has anyone a photo available to visualize the precession effect in an actual celestial observation everyone could see with their own eyes and a clock?
What would be better to visualize: the change of the local solar time of the day of the midnight culmination of a star from year to year or the change in maximum elevation the midnight culmination of a specific star reaches? Stars near the celestial equator should show the largest effect and near the celestial pole the smallest in my understanding. My guess would be the time of the midnight calculation is easier to measure it should move by a maximum of 3.34s if I understand the discussion here correctly. All my consideration was of course with ignoring the individual proper motion of a star. Isenberg (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Photo with wallclock time showing the difference for a star crossing an observer's meridian from year to year?