This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The changes on Feb 5, 2005, attributed to 69.244.72.110 were due to Pdn, who thought he was logged in, but that was in a different window. sorry
The Wikisource ephemerides are empty - does anybody know where the data is? Autarch
Not sure if this is the right place but, the Rig Veda definitely postdates the Middle Bronze Age; the bullet under "History" that:
2nd Millennium BC — Panchanga tables based on Jyotisha in the Vedic period of Indian astronomy.[citation needed]
isn't strictly false in the sense that the Rig Veda was likely composed in the second millennium but, what is considered "Jyotisha" or Hindu astrology, wasn't elaborated till much later. For example, the Rig Veda mentions demons causing eclipses and some of the later material (Atharvaveda and Chandogya Upanishad) also mention eclipse-demons, especially Rahu. The most firmly datable Indian astrological/astronomical texts are either translations from Greek (Yavanajataka) or much later medieval compositions (Brihat Parashara Horashastra). (sources are from the wiki article on Hindu astrology which is well sourced. In essence this bullet point is like attributing astronomy to the ancient Hebrews because of Joshua 10:13, when the sun stood still for Joshua at Gibeon and Ajalon. So if it's okay, and because the citation needed has been there for almost 4 years, I will go ahead and delete this bullet point. This is the citation left there: citation needed 2601:480:4101:B790:8C8D:90FF:C2DC:65AC ( talk) 01:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The articles does currently not differentiate between astronomical tables, like Tabulae Rudolphinae, and an actually computed ephemeris.
An Ephemeris is an actual list of daily (or other regular interval) positions of a celestial body. Astronomical tables are something different, they contain tabular data out of which positions of a celestial body can be computed, by a more or less simple procedure orf multiple steps (looking up numbers, adding, mulitplying, interpolating) but they do not yet contain the actual positions.-- 213.3.22.4 ( talk) 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like verification of the claim, "The majority of astrologers study tropical astrology" Warrensson ( talk) 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I would really like to see these separated into two articles. Opinions? Pro: much easier to elaborate on both subjects. Astronomers mostly think of astrology as a pseudo-science, Astrologers have little use for astronomer's ephemerides, as they calculate a completely different way. Con: ephemeris is the same word, with essentially the same meaning, for each of the two Tfr000 ( talk) 22:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This would also allow to stop using the words "scientific" and "astrological" every time the word "ephemeris" appears. No one in the astronomical community uses a term like "scientific ephemeris". Tfr000 ( talk) 22:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
MocuAed ( talk) 05:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC) says: Re: separating Astronomy from Astrology: I agree with your approach because I am of the same opinion. At the same time I am under the impression that this particular article was intended as a "comparison" or as a "parallel" of astronomic and astrologic ephemerides, so maybe there is a place for it as such? If the historical perspective be enhanced and the content organized, it might become of some value. This is just a suggestion. Which, if applied, would rise the question: since it is a parallel look at ephemerides in astronomy and astrology, would it be reasonable to coin them "astronomic ephemerides" and "astrologic ephemerides" for this purpose? MocuAed ( talk) 05:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree. I'll just move the astrology stuff to ephemeris (astrology) and keep the unqualified name for ephemeris in its scientific sense, as in a encyclopedia, science has priority over obscurantism . Bomazi ( talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I see someone deleted the astrology content. Hopefully, they moved it someplace appropriate before doing so. There's nothing wrong about non-scientific content, it simply isn't a good idea to blend the two together in one article - confusing. An encyclopedia, being encylopedic, should cover both. Tfr000 ( talk) 14:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Since my change was reverted, there seems to be a need for discussion.
Firstly, about the factual content. Since the original Greek ἐφημερίς/ἐφήμερος has a (long) η in that position (a short e would be ε), it would be very surprising if the Latin had a short e (denoted ĕ) in this place. Vowel lenght was felt much more important in ancient Latin and Greek than in modern English, so this would not normally have changed easily.
Secondly, the citations. I don't have access to the source given (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language), but I have a different paper source supporting what I wrote (Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Lateinisch–Deutsch). Also the English Wiktionary entry gives a macron in this position, and while it isn't itself a valid source and also doesn't give one, it's French sister entry (which also gives a long IPA pronunciation) does give an online source.
Perhaps the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language was referring to English pronunciation or simply made a mistake. -- SpecMade ( talk) 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Think some comment on this above, needs to be clearer about use in modern space ops, maneuver planning, antennae positioning, etc. Lycurgus ( talk) 06:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ephemeris. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The key to a definition is the verb "is" not "does" or "gives". The first sentence should be "... an ephemeris is _____". As written the question goes unanswered. Is an ephemeris a book? A chart? A set of numbers? A calculator? A pumpkin? Without a clear definition the rest of the article is a struggle to fully understand. Once one knows what an object *is*, then and only then is what it *does* or *gives* become relevant. ArtKocsis ( talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
A working link found for Note 7 is https://www.aldebaran.cz/bulletin/2009_24/GAKVAB.pdf Drankinatty ( talk) 05:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The changes on Feb 5, 2005, attributed to 69.244.72.110 were due to Pdn, who thought he was logged in, but that was in a different window. sorry
The Wikisource ephemerides are empty - does anybody know where the data is? Autarch
Not sure if this is the right place but, the Rig Veda definitely postdates the Middle Bronze Age; the bullet under "History" that:
2nd Millennium BC — Panchanga tables based on Jyotisha in the Vedic period of Indian astronomy.[citation needed]
isn't strictly false in the sense that the Rig Veda was likely composed in the second millennium but, what is considered "Jyotisha" or Hindu astrology, wasn't elaborated till much later. For example, the Rig Veda mentions demons causing eclipses and some of the later material (Atharvaveda and Chandogya Upanishad) also mention eclipse-demons, especially Rahu. The most firmly datable Indian astrological/astronomical texts are either translations from Greek (Yavanajataka) or much later medieval compositions (Brihat Parashara Horashastra). (sources are from the wiki article on Hindu astrology which is well sourced. In essence this bullet point is like attributing astronomy to the ancient Hebrews because of Joshua 10:13, when the sun stood still for Joshua at Gibeon and Ajalon. So if it's okay, and because the citation needed has been there for almost 4 years, I will go ahead and delete this bullet point. This is the citation left there: citation needed 2601:480:4101:B790:8C8D:90FF:C2DC:65AC ( talk) 01:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The articles does currently not differentiate between astronomical tables, like Tabulae Rudolphinae, and an actually computed ephemeris.
An Ephemeris is an actual list of daily (or other regular interval) positions of a celestial body. Astronomical tables are something different, they contain tabular data out of which positions of a celestial body can be computed, by a more or less simple procedure orf multiple steps (looking up numbers, adding, mulitplying, interpolating) but they do not yet contain the actual positions.-- 213.3.22.4 ( talk) 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like verification of the claim, "The majority of astrologers study tropical astrology" Warrensson ( talk) 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I would really like to see these separated into two articles. Opinions? Pro: much easier to elaborate on both subjects. Astronomers mostly think of astrology as a pseudo-science, Astrologers have little use for astronomer's ephemerides, as they calculate a completely different way. Con: ephemeris is the same word, with essentially the same meaning, for each of the two Tfr000 ( talk) 22:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This would also allow to stop using the words "scientific" and "astrological" every time the word "ephemeris" appears. No one in the astronomical community uses a term like "scientific ephemeris". Tfr000 ( talk) 22:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
MocuAed ( talk) 05:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC) says: Re: separating Astronomy from Astrology: I agree with your approach because I am of the same opinion. At the same time I am under the impression that this particular article was intended as a "comparison" or as a "parallel" of astronomic and astrologic ephemerides, so maybe there is a place for it as such? If the historical perspective be enhanced and the content organized, it might become of some value. This is just a suggestion. Which, if applied, would rise the question: since it is a parallel look at ephemerides in astronomy and astrology, would it be reasonable to coin them "astronomic ephemerides" and "astrologic ephemerides" for this purpose? MocuAed ( talk) 05:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree. I'll just move the astrology stuff to ephemeris (astrology) and keep the unqualified name for ephemeris in its scientific sense, as in a encyclopedia, science has priority over obscurantism . Bomazi ( talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I see someone deleted the astrology content. Hopefully, they moved it someplace appropriate before doing so. There's nothing wrong about non-scientific content, it simply isn't a good idea to blend the two together in one article - confusing. An encyclopedia, being encylopedic, should cover both. Tfr000 ( talk) 14:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Since my change was reverted, there seems to be a need for discussion.
Firstly, about the factual content. Since the original Greek ἐφημερίς/ἐφήμερος has a (long) η in that position (a short e would be ε), it would be very surprising if the Latin had a short e (denoted ĕ) in this place. Vowel lenght was felt much more important in ancient Latin and Greek than in modern English, so this would not normally have changed easily.
Secondly, the citations. I don't have access to the source given (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language), but I have a different paper source supporting what I wrote (Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Lateinisch–Deutsch). Also the English Wiktionary entry gives a macron in this position, and while it isn't itself a valid source and also doesn't give one, it's French sister entry (which also gives a long IPA pronunciation) does give an online source.
Perhaps the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language was referring to English pronunciation or simply made a mistake. -- SpecMade ( talk) 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Think some comment on this above, needs to be clearer about use in modern space ops, maneuver planning, antennae positioning, etc. Lycurgus ( talk) 06:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ephemeris. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The key to a definition is the verb "is" not "does" or "gives". The first sentence should be "... an ephemeris is _____". As written the question goes unanswered. Is an ephemeris a book? A chart? A set of numbers? A calculator? A pumpkin? Without a clear definition the rest of the article is a struggle to fully understand. Once one knows what an object *is*, then and only then is what it *does* or *gives* become relevant. ArtKocsis ( talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
A working link found for Note 7 is https://www.aldebaran.cz/bulletin/2009_24/GAKVAB.pdf Drankinatty ( talk) 05:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)