Rudolf,
I'd have to say that your Kennon quote makes the point quite well,
thank you for providing it. As regards the issue of the coincidence at
the First Point of Aries, the two sun's that are coincident are the
dynamical mean sun (running along the ecliptic at a uniform rate) and
the mean sun (running along the equator at a uniform rate) both of which
are "fictitious". The "real" sun is not involved.
Regards,
Luke Coletti
Rudolf Hooijenga wrote:
>
> >From William Lee Kennon, "Astronomy":
>
> -quote-
> The actual values of the equation of time from day to day throughout the
> year will depend on the point where the real sun and the fictitious sun are
> made to coincide in right ascension. It is desirable that this point be so
> chosen that the values of the equation of time throughout the year will be
> distributed as symmetrically as may be with respect to the corresponding
> values of mean solar time. The proper mathematical analysis shows that this
> will be accomplished when the fictitious sun is made to coincide with the
> real sun when the latter is at perihelion. (This occurs about January 1.)
> -unquote
>
> While it is true that the paths of the real and the fictitious sun share the
> first of Aries, the suns do not get there at the same time; there is a
> difference of about 7 minutes in their hour angles. Does that help or make
> it worse?
>
> Rudolf
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel Lee Wenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Luke Coletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Luke
> >
> > Your argument is very clear as usual, but it is the statement that by
> > definition the mean sun
> > and the dynamical mean sun coincide at the Vernal Equinox that is the key
> > to the question.
