MYSTcommunity: The Hahr vs The Year - MYSTcommunity

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

The Hahr vs The Year Yet another look at chronology

Poll: The Hahr vs The Year (6 member(s) have cast votes)

Is 28.1 days each year significant?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote

#1 Guest_The Archivist_

  • Group: Guest

Posted 30 January 2011 - 04:27 AM

I'm back again with another topic of time. In my boredom I've been looking over the length of the D'ni year. I've read that 1 prorahn is approximately 1.5 seconds. This being the case,
Spoiler
whereas
Spoiler
which means that the D'ni hahr is 28.1 days longer than a surface year. It doesn't really sound that significant, but that's ~7.7% longer. This means that over a decade there will be 281 days difference, 2810 over a century, and 28100 over a millennium. It means in 1000 D'ni hahrtee, ~1077 years will pass on the surface. Maybe that's significant, maybe not, but it makes it a lot harder to keep track of the day in D'ni if you don't have a calendar and time piece.

Any thoughts?



---POSTSCRIPT---
Sorry about the spoiler tags, but I didn't want to scare anybody off with numbers and I wanted to make it a little less cluttered.
0

#2 User is offline   Lostthyme 

  • Quab Wrangler
  • Group: Team Member
  • Posts: 1,175
  • Joined: 07-April 08
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA
  • KI number:00280695

Posted 30 January 2011 - 10:51 AM

I think that's pretty significant, especially if you're trying to do date conversions. I wonder if the difference might account for some of the D'ni's longevity. They could live to be 300 years old, but would that be in D'ni hahr or in Earth years? I would guess that's in Earth years, but it's still something to think about. I wonder if the difference would even be large enough to matter. Interesting.
0

#3 User is offline   Kaelri 

  • Red Leader
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 1,703
  • Joined: 16-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:York, New
  • KI number:49612

Posted 30 January 2011 - 12:09 PM

It's a little cleaner if you work backwards. RAWA has confirmed that the D'ni hahr is equal to 31556925.216 seconds (the same as the mean tropical year on Earth, as estimated in 1995). So if we start from there, we get:

1 hahr = 31556925.216 s
1 vai-lee = 3155692.522 s
1 yahr = 108816.984 s
1 gahr-tah-vo = 21763.397 s
1 pahr-tah-vo = 4352.679 s
1 tah-vo = 870.536 s
1 gor-ahn = 34.821
1 pro-rahn = 1.393 s


So the DRC's estimation of 1.5 seconds is a little misleading; it's really closer to 1.4. Alternatively, if you use the rule of thumb that 28 prorahn = 39 seconds, you only lose 1 second every 47 days.

(I can't take credit for anything in this post, of course. I'm really just cribbing the MYSTlore article.)
0

#4 Guest_The Archivist_

  • Group: Guest

Posted 30 January 2011 - 02:28 PM

Yes, I just thought of that this morning ...Or this afternoon I suppose. It was morning when I wrote it. (Hooray for insomnia!) I guess it really depends which method of time keeping you consider to be most accurate (or least rounded if you prefer). Which means 1.7 hours every year. Which is much less significant than 28 days. I just assumed the smallest measure of time would have been most accurate. But I suppose it makes sense to use the 30hr, 14min span instead. I guess that solves that problem.



Could I please get this thread closed? I think it's had all the discussion it needs.
0

#5 User is offline   Kaelri 

  • Red Leader
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 1,703
  • Joined: 16-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:York, New
  • KI number:49612

Posted 30 January 2011 - 03:15 PM

Sure.

Moderator Note

Thread locked on OP's request.


0

#6 User is offline   Free Bird 

  • oglahnth (ancient one)
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,874
  • Joined: 21-August 01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Voorschoten, The Netherlands
  • KI number:343012

Posted 30 January 2011 - 04:42 PM

View PostThe Archivist, on 30 January 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

I just assumed the smallest measure of time would have been most accurate.

Why would that be?
Oh. Thread closed. Well, whatever...
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users