Talk:Eclipse cycle

message: I've been trying to find the original Greek word "syzygia" (from which syzygy comes), but I haven't yet found it.  All I've come up with is the Roman transliteration.  I'm guessing it's συζυγια—can someone verify this, please? Ortonmc 04:30, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It indeed comes from the Greek word συζυγία, which means "union", itself originating from the prefix συν- ("with") and the noun ζυγός ("yoke"). — Poulpy 11:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: syzygia

message: Lunokhod asked for a third opinion on the confusing sections.  Here are my thoughts:
*Numerical values - The first section uses a lot of jargon that is explained in the above text but that is difficult to follow.  The second section contains some esoteric calculations that are not needed here.  It would confuse the average reader, and it is not clear what purpose these calculations serve.
*Eclipse cycles uses a lot of terminology that is explained, but the explanations are very poor and unenlightening.  Moreover, it is so technically-oriented and so esoteric that it does not look like it would be of interest to the average reader.  Removing it would strengthen the article.
In general, I suggest rewriting the article while avoiding jargon (or introducing jargon carefully).  This article is simply not written for a general audience.  Dr. Submillimeter 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion on confusing items 

message: "Eclipse cycle" is one page that I have surfed to and relied upon quite often, including recently on my "Length of the Lunar Cycle" project, and obtained a lot of useful information from it. I never found fault with its contents, organization, or layout.  It always had the answers that I needed, easy and quick to find!
Kalendis 12:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth opinion on confusing items 

message: Eclipses have been studies and documented for thousands of years. While they are esoteric to some, they are very important for reasons I won't discuss here. Suffice it to say that the remaining discussion should be taken in the context of having an interest in eclipses.
Eclipses, from a purely physical perspective, are well defined and easily described given the right language. Given the wrong language, such a discussion can be very confusing. For example, we need to be very clear what we mean by one orbit of the moon, since one orbit can mean different things.
All this NECESSARILY requires a certain amount of jargon. The jargon is required for clarity. I find that it is presented in this article in a very clear and logical progression. If a term, like "node" is unfamiliar to the reader, they can follow the included link to familiarize themselves with the terms. If the link does not provide the needed information, that should not adversely impact the quality of the article under consideration. In other words, we should not consider the Eclipse Cycle article to be poorly written because the link to "node" is poorly written.
As to the difference between Saros cycle and eclipse cycle, that's like asking for the difference between a zebra and a horse. There's no issue in having separate articles for zebra and horse, is there?
Regarding the numbers used and whether there should be further explanation of where they come from, if you follow the included links, appropriate explantion is included. The only change I would suggest is that if a table is to be given that lists the values to be used, then just use those values, rather than using elipses,  ("29.53059... / (27.21222.../2) = 2.170391..." would be better rendered as "29.53059/(27.21222/2)=2.170391". Perhaps a note about the inverse would be appropriate, too, but that would seem to be a bit pedantic.
: I note that the continued fractions expansion using these 7-digit approximations excludes the saros cycle, being (2;5,1,6,1,1,1,2,126,...) rather than (2;5,1,6,1,1,1,1,1,11,1) as listed in the article. So I must assume higher precision numbers were used in the continued fractions calculations, rather than the numbers listed. Victor Engel 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct.  For the continud fractions I used the full (10 decimals or so) values from the ELP; hence the ellipses.  I'll provide the accurate values with reference tomorrow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom Peters (talk • contribs) 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional opinions 

message: This section summarizes concepts discussed previously in the article, while it may be confusing on it's own it is not confusing in the context of the article.--TimL (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed confuse tag 

message: I undid the repeating decimals change. First, indicating repeating decimals adds nothing to the article. Second, there's no indication which digits are repeated, making the ellipses worthless. Victor Engel (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Was just extending what you have started, but it's better that they have been all reverted. — Glenn L (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeating Decimals 

message: I added the Tzolkinex, although based on this chart it is a very poor eclipse cycle. I don't know yet how to derive the Inex/Saros formula for it, though I do know it is one saros minus one tritos. Perhaps I can figure it out from that. Is it worthy of an article (doubtful, too poor)? --TimL (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Tzolkinex 

message: eclipse series which is 19 eclipse years (223 synodic months) - Ben Franklin 71.206.87.9 (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How long an eclipse series lasts depends on the eclipse cycle being referred to. I removed the change. TimL • talk 20:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Eclipse series' which is 19 'eclipse years' (223 synodic months) 

message: While working on my user page I noticed an interesting "coincidence". The total Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 and the total Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 cross paths over North America. That is one tzokinex minus one semester (I'll call it "semetzi" for short). The total Solar eclipse of August 12, 2045 and the total Solar eclipse of March 30, 2052 also cross paths over North America. Again one semetzi. There are others I've found as well. They are  a half integer (2421.51) solar days apart (so the earth has rotated 180 degrees) so I don't understand how consecutive "semetzis" could fall on the same side of the earth. I think the half year offset ensures they cross paths, but I'm not sure why, in the examples I've found, eclipses near spring tend to track northwest and eclipses near fall tend to track southwest. This also seems to depend on the gamma of the eclipse as well as the time of year. This never seems to happen more than once in a row. For example the eclipse one semetzi after 2024 does occur on the other side of the earth like I would expect due to the half integer of days. Each eclipse is 6 saros apart so I can see why the pattern would break as the saros gets too old, but I can't explain why the 2024 eclipse seems to fall on the "wrong" side of the earth. Hmmmm.... TimL • talk 12:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Semetzi" 

message: I dont speak English very well, the reason that i wont edit the page, but if you want, you are free to do yourself.
Since the beginning of past century astronomers noted a secuence of fibonacci starting in 6 moons (semester) then 41 moons, then 47 moons then 88 moons then 135 moons then 223 moons then 358 moons ...
All this cycles have numbers of fibonacci in their components inex and saros, for examplo 5 inex - 8 saros in semester (6 moons), the continued fraction on Phi is 1;1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1.... and you will note that 2;5,1,6,1,1,1,1,1,11,... and 5;1,6,1,1,1,1,1,1,11... have five numbers one, in this numbers one we see from semester to inex, 5 cycles that belong to the secuence fibonacci, Finally we see the ratio sinodical month / half eclipse year of all eclipses that belong fibonacci serie,  in continued fraction 5;1,6,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1..... 
Today i have edited this talk too, because i noted that with continued fractions 2;5,1,6,1,1,1,1,1,11 and 5;1,6,1,1,1,1,1,11 the number of members of each eclipse cycles increase until the last cycle with 12 inex + 1 saros (9808 half draconitic months, 4519 synodic months and 770 half eclipses) that it is the knowed eclipse cycle with more life expectancy
The fractions 5;1,6,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,.... and 2;5,1,6,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,.... (that contains the cycles with fibonacci numbers in inex and saros components) are only aproximations, but good aproximations, 
the difference continues after 1 saros and then 1 inex, that are the two cycles basis of all the eclipses cycles  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacio Colmenero Vargas (talk • contribs) 02:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "the difference continues after 1 saros and then 1 inex, that are the two cycles basis of all the eclipses cycles", This fact is mentioned in the article on the Inex. I have added it to this article.  — TimL • talk 01:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phi from continued fractions (fibonacci numbers in saros and inex) 

message: All the values about eclipses change depending what epoch, i only talk about year 2000.
In this year 12 inex + 1 saros has 14911 members, this cycle is the continued fractions 2;5,1,6,1,1,1,1,1,11,1 and 5;1,6,1,1,1,1,1,11,1, I think that it is the cycle with major number of members because the value of sidereal month / half draconitic month in continued fractions is 2;5,1,6,1,1,1,1,1,11,1,19,3,1,1,1,11 and the value of of half eclipse year / sidereal month is 5;1,6,1,1,1,1,1,11,1,20,1,2,1,130,1, so, just after the 12 inex + 1 saros, the calculated values are differents, for example after 12 inex + 1 saros the next cycle is or 239 inex + 20 saros or 251 inex + 21 saros (depending what value we use of both values)in a cycle we have the ratio sidereal month / half draconitic month is more accurate and in the other cycle the ratio half eclipse year / sidereal month is more accurate, but they isn't more accurate in both ratios, i am talking about calculated values i don't know if with real values it occurs the same, and i don't know if that the diference of both cycles is ¡¡¡12 inex + 1 saros!!! is only a concidence Ignacio Colmenero Vargas (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 12 inex + 1 saros the cycle with major number of members 

message: These seem to have much of the same content. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems even more similar to the content of Saros (astronomy) – the mathematics described corresponds exactly to that. I would support merging whatever is appropriate to either one, and would not support keeping this article, which duplicates content. ComplexRational (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I missed that article, so thanks for pointing it out. I think that's the best target for the merge. Do you happen to know more about these topics? I don't know much myself, so when performing the merge I'm likely to mess up (i.e. leave duplicated content, etc.), although I'd still be willing to try. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , At a rudimentary level—at least the background and math (which is what stuck out as extremely similar)—yes. I would be willing to perform the merge if you prefer. ComplexRational (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , ok thanks. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Agreed to be merged. --N Sanu / എന്‍ സാനു / एन सानू 12:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  noting that this is still outstanding; any chance of you taking a look? Klbrain (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge as initially proposed. Saros (astronomy) is a subset of Periodicity of solar eclipses, and so merging the broader concept to the narrow doesn't seem to make sense. Also, the Eclipse cycle#Periodicity is unreferenced and vague, and would benefit by being replaced by the content on Periodicity of solar eclipses. There should be better linking to Saros (astronomy). Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Periodicity of solar eclipses]] into [[Eclipse cycle#Periodicity]] 

message: Since the selebit and square year were mentioned in the numerical value line, I added them onto the eclipse cycle table and notes.
A selebit is 11 inex + 1 saros where the number of eclipse years compares to the number of days making up 1 lunar year, and the cycle ends slightly more than 5 months later.
A selebit is nearly 354.5 eclipse years whereas a lunar year is nearly 354.37 days.
A square year is 12 inex + 1 saros, where the number of solar years in such cycle approximates the number of days in 1 solar year, and the cycle ends nearly 4.5 months later.
A solar year is approximately 365.242 days whereas a square year is approximately 365.37 solar years.
Plus a square year is the eighth convergent in the continued fractions development of the ratio between the eclipse year and the synodic month, which helps give such cycle a very long life expectancy. Eric Nelson27 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The addition of a selebit and Square year 

message: A semanex was added as it's an eclipse cycle where each eclipse is an integer number of weeks apart, so such eclipses take place on the same day of the week.
It is the shortest eclipse cycle to truly achieve this.
The hepton for example doesn't always end on the same day of the week. Eric Nelson27 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semanex 

message: This page was revised to May 2023 since it's known that along with some of the eclipse cycles (such as those that don't have their own wiki pages) in the continued fractions expansion ratio were mentioned, the source for that information is shown in the second link on this source https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/eclipse/eclipsecycles.htm#Sar%20%28Half%20Saros%29
As seen in the reference box.
The source views 11 i + s as unnamed, but the continued fractions ratio box names it a selebit, hence the eclipse cycle table on the wiki page mentions that cycle as a selebit, not to mention the reference of the information.
Yet since the source link and ratio box mention 12 i + s as a square year, the eclipse cycle table on here mentions that cycle as so.
Yet the source mentions more additional eclipse cycles not mentioned on here.
While the hepton is also mentioned, it doesn't have its own wiki page and instead redirects to the eclipse cycle page.
As for additional fixes, instead of saying 1 saros" or 1 inex on the eclipse cycle table, it's just saros or inex.
Yet the semanex isn't incuded this time as of now since the continued fractions expansion ratio doesn't show it.. Eric Nelson27 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of May 2023 + additional fixes 

message: As mentioned here;  a hexon is the regular period of 6 eclipse seasons, spanning 35 synodic months, and removing 1 synodic month from 3 lunar years, leading to eclipses toward the same node of the Moon's orbit occuring on a regular basis for as long as such series would last (which usually contains 6 members). Eric Nelson27 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of the hexon 

message: I'm uncertain whether the comma at the end of the Periodicity opening paragraph is supposed to be a period or an incomplete sentence that was supposed to be completed but ended up, for some reason or other, not getting finished. Keebruce (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a reason why the opening paragraph of Periodicity ends with a comma? 

message: On the link there are many more eclipse cycles that weren't mentioned in the page, such as the semanex (3s - i - returning to the same weekday), the thix (36 tzolk'ins), the Aubrey cycle (named after the calculation using the Aubrey holes in Stonehenge), the quarter Palmen cycle 4i - s), the Mercury cycle (2i + 3s - synchronizing with Mercury), the tritrix (3i + 3s), the trihex (3i + 6s), the Lambert II cycle (9i + s), the Macdonald cycle (6i + 7s), the Utting cycle (10i + s - named after James Utting), the Gregoriana (6i + 11s - or 372 years), the hexdodeka (6i + 12s), the Grattan Guinness cycle (12i + 4s or 391 years), the basic period (18i), the Chalepe (18i + 2s), the hyper exeligmos (24i + 12s or 12 Callippic cycles minus 1 lunar year), the cartouche (52i), the Palaea-Horologia (55i + 3s), the hybridia (55 i + 4s), the Selenid cycles (55i + 5s and 95i + 11s), the Proxima (58i + 5s), the heliotrope (58i + 6s or 1787 years - 3 days), the Megalosaros (58i + 7s or 95 Metonic cycles), the immobilis (58i + 8s), the accuratissima (58i + 9s), the Mackay cycle (76i + 9s), or the horologia (110i + 7s).
These are named cycles, as those not mentioned on this page to date are unnamed.
With the unidos being shown on here before all the other named eclipse cycles were added, there are so many eclipse cycles that are to be mentioned.
While none of the additional named eclipse cycles are as noteworthy or famous as the saros or inex (as those two are mainstream), the page has been needing a dire update as so much had yet to be mentioned. Eric Nelson27 (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of other named eclipse cycles