Disputatio:Annus

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hmmm...Petre, nonne "annus" adhibetur pro spatio temporis corporis stellosi ulli circum eius stellae? Ita, non modo Terra et Sole, at planeta et stella quibuspiam... Ultra, explicemus annos planetarum solumque aliarum describier a "terrosis annis" (maybe julian years). Video hanc translationem esse anglicae paginae, sed estne re vera eius descriptio recta? Quid putas?--Ioshus Rocchio 19:08, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Hem. Recte de aliis stellosi corporibus dicis. Dicere illa verba in re conatus sum. Aut in orbe terrarum aut in Marte annus est spatium temporis inter duo eventa repitita. Idem omnibus planetis est, quamquam annus non idem spatium temporis est. Nescio utrum rem anglicam veram an falsam esse. Annum Iulianum googlabo. Sinister Petrus 19:36, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Iam plurem habeo. Vide etiam his in locis: [1] vel [2] Iam rem mihi clara est. Annus enim Iulianus est 365.25 dies. Annus verus orbi terrarum non est idem tempus. Annus tropicalis videri potest hic: [3]
Nostra res de anno tropicali esse videtur. Quo modo putas? Sinister Petrus 19:44, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Vide en:Mars. In infocista nota "Orbital period 686.9600 d (1.8808 a)." Illa "a" est abbreviatio "anni", et re vera est abbreviatio scientifica pro anno Iuliano. Videtur mihi est annus a quo annus Martianus, Venetianus, Mercurianus, etc. definitur.--Ioshus Rocchio 20:54, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Vide etiam en:Julian year (astronomy).--Ioshus Rocchio 20:55, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
I think we're pretty much in agreement here. That, and I do mention that "a" is the abbreviation for Julian Year in the Annus Iulianus section. I guess it just burns down to this: when we say year, do we mean Julian Year? or do we embrace other types of year? Certe, Annus Iulianus rem suam ipsam habeat. But I think for now, what I've got about the Julian Year is enough (especially since it is pretty Earth specific, and the concept of year isn't). I did try to make clear in the article's opening that year is the time a planet takes to go from one point to the same point. Perhaps there is a better way to say it.
Fortasse dicere debitur: Annus est spatium temporis in quo planeta solem a loco ad locum eundem circumit. Sinister Petrus 21:37, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think we are, too. How about this: "Annus est spatium temporis in quo satelles circum eius solem ab puncto uno ad eundem punctum circumeat." or something of that sort. Then go on to something like, "Annus vulgo significat terra around the sun and such" go on to more specific definitions of year, atomic seconds, etc. And then explain that both other orbits can be called years, scilicet "Martian year" apud anglicam, as well as other orbits can be measured in "a" which I think is defined, scientifically, as a matter of atomic seconds: "365.25 days or 31,557,600 seconds". Does this make sense?--Ioshus Rocchio 21:53, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Hem. Opinor sic: All the technical stuff should be in either a separate section or in a following paragraph. While everything you say is true (and interesting to the science nerd in me), I think for general purposes more generic (res vulgares) information ought to come first. Then as you read further, more and more specialized information should come. But I guess that's the worker-ant-at-the-publishing-house talking now. Sinister Petrus 04:26, 11 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Rem mutavi ut legatur: "Annus spatium temporis in quo planeta circum eius solem ab puncto uno ad eundem punctum circumeat. Dum annus dici orbi terrarum solet, etiam applicare ad ullam planetam potest: exemplo, "Annus Martius" est annus Marti." Definitio anni tua mihi placet, sed planetam, non satellitem, dixi. Nonnulae satellites non sunt planetae, sic annos non habent. Haud Luna annum, nisi mensem esse annum opineris, habet. Sinister Petrus 15:01, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)