Jump to content

Talk:Prime meridian (Greenwich)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per sources and ngram -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Meridian → Greenwich meridian – There is no basis for the capitalization. This term is usually lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Five separate Greenwich meridians are recognized, those of Flamsteed, Halley, Bradley, Airy and the IRM. This article should include at least the first four that were represented by transit circles, so "meridian" should not be capitalized. Bradley's meridian is still in use as the zero meridian of the Ordnance Survey. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Your n-gram links shows a distinct minority capitalization of "meridian" in that context. What are you claiming? I agree the argument about number is meaningless, but look at MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CAPS says we decide about proper names by consulting sources. Sources don't capitalize the Greenwich meridian, as the n-gram links show. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is that? The supporters outvote logic? People base moves on dubious Ngrams? What is "per Joe Kress" - Joe Kress said there are several Greenwich meridians, but then the article should be named Meridians in Greenwich or Greenwich meridians. Tony says "go with the sources" - which sources? The Royal Observatory which says Greenwich Meridian at this page? HTML2011 (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the ext link named "sources" in the original proposed move. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GPS anomaly

[edit]

I am interested in the commentary on one of the photographs:"A GPS receiver at the prime meridian. This does not indicate a longitude of zero because the GPS reference meridian is about 100 metres to the east." I can't see any reference to this in the main body of the text nor, for that matter, in the article on GPS. Is this worth referencing within the main article, and explaining why this has occured? Perhaps naively, I would have thought that the Greenwich Meridian would be the demarcation of East and West. KPOK (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained at Prime meridian#IERS Reference Meridian. In my view, this article in its present state adds so little to what is in the "Prime meridian" that it hardly deserves to exist.
Another issue with the picture is that recreation-grade GPS receivers can be off by 100 metres, so we can't say how much of the reading displayed is to a difference between the Greenwich and IERS meridian, and how much is due to error in the GPS measurement. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the GPS is almost spot on as its position puts the meridian line 5.4 seconds of arc west of the practical meridian. It is in fact 5.3101 seconds of arc west of the meridian, so the GPS is off by about 1.5 metres. Not bad! I B Wright (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ecliptic and the prime meridian

[edit]

Am I mistaken, or does the ecliptic intersect the equator exactly on the prime meridian? And did this play a role in the decision?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic_coordinate_system#mediaviewer/File:Ecliptic_vs_equator_small.gif

Werner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.185.52 (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the ecliptic intersects the celestial equator (which is the projection of the terrestrial equator into space) at the equinoxes. The prime meridian is on earth and moves with the surface of the Earth. Longitude is measured on the surface of the Earth from the prime meridian, which is 0°longitude. The celestial meridian passing through the celestial poles and the equinoxes doesn't have a special name that I know of, but obviously it is nearly fixed compared to the stars; it does not move with the surface of the earth. The angle measured eastward along the celestial equator from the vernal equinox to the point of interest is the right ascension. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks! You say "the ecliptic intersects the celestial equator (which is the projection of the terrestrial equator into space) at the equinoxes." Doesn't it do so roughly at the same spot each year? I'm just wondering why old geographers included an "ecliptic" on their maps, as if it is not fixed, how was it useful for navigating? Ah, well...

Werner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.185.52 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomers often speak of the "fixed stars". These are stars that are so far away that their motion is not detectable; they serve as fixed reference points in the sky. Due to precession of the equinoxes, the location of the equinoxes makes a complete circle around the ecliptic (which is the projection of the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun onto the celestial sphere) in about 26,000 years. So the location of an equinox, compared to the fixed stars, is almost fixed. When thinking of the equinoxes as reference points, they exist all the time, not just when the Sun is at the equinox. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge

[edit]

this article overlaps significantly with the merger target section. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In its present state this article seems like a suitable merge candidate. However, it could be expanded considerably by merging in United Kingdom Ordnance Survey Zero Meridian, which really doesn't need to be a separate article. Also, a description of any better measurements between the various meridians that pass through the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, may be found or better measurements may be performed in the future. So I think this article is a good repository for any details we wish to add about these meridians rather than cluttering up the Prime meridian article, which is already fairly long. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for Calculation of observed transits?

[edit]
Per WP:TPO, closing section initiated in response to editing of IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A London area IP editor, 86.153.131.100 (talk) * contribs), made the following change [1], [2]:

  • Was: "The times for the observed transits were therefore a little earlier than they should have been causing the measurements to refer to a meridian 102 metres east of the transit circle"
  • To: "The times for the observed transits were therefore 354 milliseconds earlier than they should have been causing the measurements to refer to a meridian 102 metres east of the transit circle"

(emphasis added). I reverted as unsourced [3] and explained why on the IP's talk page [4]. The IP restored, with the editsummary "Anyone can calculate this", and a response on their talk page [5] noting "The calculation is 5.3101 seconds of arc divided by 360 degrees of arc multiplied by 24 hours = 0.354+ seconds".

I am not going to re-revert, but WP:CALC states "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. "

  • I don't think this calculation fits the plain meaning of a routine calculation. The elements of the calculation, noted only on the IP's talk page, are not contained in the article nor is the calculation itself obvious. As such, the change provided should be backed up by a reference to a reliable source.
  • What is the consensus of other editors?

Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion of the extent of the math exception in the thread Wikipedia talk:No original research‎#MEDRS and primary/secondary near the end. (The math question is really a bit off-topic for that thread.) One could argue this is just a unit conversion from arcseconds to seconds of time. If this were a more technical article, where only a person who converted between angles and time in their sleep could hope to understand the article, I would let it go. Since this is a more general-interest article, I would explain the conversion in a footnote.
I also noticed the precision of the coordinates for the Airy transit were too precise and came from a self-published source, so I corrected that. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeSperrazza: The calculation is fairly straightforward, but the result needs qualification. If the real meridian is 5.3101 seconds of arc east of the marked or defined meridian, and the earth takes 23 hours and 56 minutes (a sidereal day) to go through a full revolution (360 degrees), then the calculation is a simple ratio and gives .331424 seconds (or .3456 sidereal seconds if you prefer). I believe our anonymous friend assumed that the earth turns through 360 degrees in 24 hours which put his answer in sidereal seconds. I B Wright (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the text entered needs clarification or correction and a footnote. Would one of you subject matter experts be able to do that? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @I B Wright: except for precision. Since I've edited the article to limit precision of the longitude of the Airy transit to tenths of arcseconds, the precision of the time should be limited to 3 places after the decimal point. Indeed, since Malys et al. don't provide any obvious error bounds on the longitude coordinate, it might be safer to limit the time to 2 places after the decimal point. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is insignificant. 5.31 seconds or 5.3 seconds gives the same answer to 3 significant figures. Sourcing the true eastern shift is problematic because the Greenwich observatory itself puts the GPS referenced meridian at 5.64 seconds east of the Airy transit circle,[1] though they don't say what type of GPS receiver they used.
The measurement should have been made using a surveying type phase carrier receiver whose error is around 20 centimetres if 12 satellites are visible overhead. The best a standard recreational one can do is about 10 metres though this can be substantially improved upon if measurements are taken over a long period of time. I B Wright (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checking on Google maps, 5.3" misses the Airy transit circle by about 7 metres. 5.31" is better but still misses by a metre or two. I B Wright (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System and search for articles by the authors of the Malys et al. paper. You will see the authors of that paper are deeply involved in the fundamentals of astronomical and terrestrial coordinate systems. A web page by a museum (which is what the Royal Observatory, Greenwich is now) or a Google map cannot compare to those authors in terms of reliability. Also, Google does not seem to make any statement about how accurate their maps are. I certainly wouldn't trust them to better than 30 metres unless I identified some nearby reference marks that had been measured by a reliable organizaiton, such as the National Geodetic Survey, and compared the measured vs. Google values. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put my hands up. You are right, I did use 24 regular hours. 86.153.131.100 (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thegreenwichmeridian.org/tgm/articles.php?article=7

Edit by I B Wright

[edit]

I must take issue with this edit by User:I B Wright. What I view as an incorrect approach begins with the sentence "In each case, the transit instrument was installed to be perpendicular to the the reference elipsoid...." Transit circles, even today, are installed so that the axis about which the telescope turns is parallel to local level, as indicated by a spirit level or pool of mercury. This is equivalent to the axis of the telescope, when the telescope is pointed straight up, being parallel to a plumb line. Any correction for the deflection of the vertical would have been corrected mathematically after the observations were taken. One would have to find a source from the late 19th century to determine whether a correction for deflection of the vertical was made. The people who built the observatory, and later chose the Airy transit as the prime meridian, did exactly what they intended to; the current offset is due to new discoveries and refinements since that time. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your point. If you are saying that transit circles today are installed perpendicular to the local level using a spirit level or pool of mercury (the later unlikely now) and that it is equavalent to using a plumb line, where is the contention? The Airy transit circle was installed just prior to 1851 which would seem to predate any measurements of deflection of the vertical (or if they had started, would appear to be not very advanced if they were still ongoing at the time of the international conference). I would also point out that part was copy editing your contributions, so if you believe I have misinterpreted them, correct them. This is the encyclopedia anybody can edit. I B Wright (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edit claims the transit circle was installed perpendicular to the reference ellipsoid. In fact, it was installed perpendicular to local level. These are different. Reference ellipsoids are found by making geodesic surveys over a large area and choosing an ellipsoid that is a good compromise for all the stations surveyed. See Earth ellipsoid. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I B Wright (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I though that I had understood the History section as rewritten, but this discussion has changed that. If I have got this right (and I confess that this is not my area of expertise), the transit circle was installed to be perpendicular by using a plumb line. You are saying here that by this means that it would be perpendicular to the local level (or as the article puts it, it points toward the centre of gravity of the earth). If I understand this: the local level is a plane at right angles to the line of the plumb line. What the article [currently] is saying is that the transit circle does not point to the celestial meridian (the imaginary line in the sky directly above the terrestrial meridian on which the transit circle sits) but to an alternative and unintended meridian slightly east of it. The article says, and you seem to have taken issue with it, is that it is perpendicular to the surface of some geometric structure, this ellipsoid thingy, that represents the shape of the planet, presumably ignoring geological variations. The Earth ellipsoid article would appear to support my understanding. So the question is: for the transit circle to point toward the intended celestial meridian, what does it have to be perpendicular to and how should it have been constructed?
Also, the second paragraph tells of the 18th century builders of transit circles using a plumb line to erect a structure perpendicular to the surface of this ellipsoid. Was that really their intent or were they intent on building it perpendicular to a level plane - after all, they would not have been aware that there was any difference between them at this time? I can safely assume this, because if they had been aware, they might have built it right. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then and now, transit circles and other ground-based instruments are aligned to local vertical, which is a plane perpendicular to a plumb line. If the plumb line were extended downward toward the center of mass of the Earth, it would miss, because the Earth's crust is not homogeneous, and areas of greater or lesser density, or mountains, near an observation station deflect the direction of the plumb line. So there was never any intent to allign any transit circle to the normal to the ellipsoid.
At the time of the conference, there was the beginning of geodetic surveying that would allow calculations of deflection of vertical for some ellipsoid that was a good fit for the part of the world where the survey was conducted. But until satellites were invented, it wasn't possible to extend these surveys across oceans and choose an ellipsoid that was a good fit for the whole world. I think the people involved in the conference, being representatives of many countries, and being primarily interested in nautical navigation, would not have been interested in whatever ellipsoid applied to Britain. Also, the Malys et al. paper only discusses the astronomical latitude and longitude (with respect to local level) of the Airy transit and the modern WGS-84 and International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF); there is no mention of any 19th century ellipsoids.
You ask "what does it have to be perpendicular to and how should it have been constructed?" It should have been constructed exactly as it was constructed. Observations from similar instruments operating today are mathematically corrected to allow for the WGS-84 and ITRF. Indeed, new implementations of these reference frames (which include an ellipsoid) are constantly being released, so even old observations can be re-corrected when a new version of a reference frame comes out Jc3s5h (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers not quite right (and a typo)

[edit]

The current text reads: "As a result of this, any measurements of transit time across the view of the transit telescope occured 0.331 seconds (or 0.345 sidereal seconds) before the transit across the intended meridian."

Should that not be (assuming a longitude offset of 5.3"): "As a result of this, any measurements of transit time across the view of the transit telescope occurred 0.352 seconds (or 0.353 sidereal seconds) before the transit across the intended meridian."?

The current numbers assume a solar/sidereal day ratio of 0.345/0.331 = 1.042 while the actual ratio is 1.00274. AstroLynx (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Urban & Seidelmann's Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac p. 78 the number of SI seconds in a sidereal day is given as 86,164 (rounding to nearest second). 5.3"/360° = 4.0895×10−6. The product of these is 0.352 SI seconds. It takes more sidereal seconds than SI seconds to describe the same interval by the ratio 86,400/86,164 = 1.00274, as AstroLynx says, so 0.352 SI seconds = 0.353 sidereal seconds, just as AstroLynx says. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding in the text

[edit]

The text says "This in turn meant that the Airy transit circle points very slightly to the east of the modern celestial meridian (the line in the sky directly above the prime meridian). As a result of this, any measurements of transit time across the view of the transit telescope occurs 0.352 seconds (or 0.353 sidereal seconds) before the transit across the intended meridian." This is wrong - the local vertical at the Airy transit circle is parallel to the geodetic vertical 102m west (to within the errors) according to Malys et al. (referenced in the next paragraph). This mean an astronomical transit measured at the ITRF zero meridian will be 0.352s seconds (or 0.353 sidereal seconds) before the transit across the intended meridian, it will occur at the correct time at the transit telescope. Similarly, it is the modern geodetic meridian that is very slightly to the east of the Airy transit circle. This appears to have been misunderstood. Robminchin (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. This whole article was written by someone who has completely missed the point: the Greenwich meridian is not a location, it's a direction in space. And the plane of the meridian contains both the direction of the plumbline at the transit circle and of the ellipsoidal normal at the point 102 m west of it (and BTW even without deflections of the vertical, the Greenwich plumbline passes many kilometres south of the geocentre, due to the flattening of the Earth) 130.233.139.251 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prime meridian (Greenwich). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity versus Meridian

[edit]

Does anyone know why tonnage is associate with a meridian? Tonnage has to do with ship capacity and not ship location. Therefore, the idea of a location based upon a reference point (meridian) makes sense, but capacity based upon the same reference point does not. - --KitchM (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tonnage was a deciding point in selecting Greenwich to be the International Meridian because it was used by most ships by far just before the International Meridian Conference in 1884. In its Proceedings is a table of the tonnage of ships using each of 12 meridians (including Greenwich, Paris, Cadiz, and Miscellaneous). Greenwich's tonnage was 14,600,972 tons out of a total of all tonnage of 20,312,093 tons, or 72%. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prime_meridian_(Greenwich)&oldid=1207457139"