VMs: RE: Moons in Zodiac?

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent thoughts, Greg!  I guess if I'm going to ever become a
full-fledged lunatic, I need to study my Meave a little more!

Actually, I got the suggestion of the two colors from another
manuscript, which uses light and dark in opposites.  The light
color was the darkening of the moon, and the dark color denoted
the full moon.  Why it was written this way I'm not sure.

Excellent points about the 28 day interval as well.  I was kind of
wondering if some odd year might match this calendar, but your
suggestion is much more reasonable.  I'm looking forward to any
new ideas you may have on this drawing, as it appears to be
something we should be able to figure out rather easily.

GC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-voynich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-voynich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Greg
> Stachowski
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:45 AM
> Cc: Voynich Ms. mailing list
> Subject: VMs: Re: Moons in Zodiac?
>
>
>
> Hello Glen,
>
> A couple of points, before I dig out Ye Olde
> Astronomicale Programme :)
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, GC wrote:
>
> > 4.  that the two colors of moon-faces denote waxing and waning
> > moons.
>
> If the colours denote waxing and waning, why is the
> crescent always on the
> same side? The moon always waxes and wanes on opposite
> sides (waxing - lit
> crescent on the right, horns facing left, dark side on
> left; waning - lit
> crescent on left, dark side on right, as viewed from
> the northern
> hemisphere).
>
> > 5.  that the moon-faces denote the moon's state on
> the first of
> > each month (no full moons present this year).
>
> The convex (as opposed to crescent) appearance of the
> moon lasts for about
> two weeks each cycle (one week waxing, one waning). The
> drawings seem
> rather too innaccurate to place the phase of the moon
> to better than
> perhaps 3-4 days in each of those weeks, although I
> shall have a more
> careful look when I do the calculations.
>
> Given that the length of the lunar month is 28 days, in
> a given year the
> moon is broadly (to within a few days) in the same
> phase on the first day
> of any two consecutive months, it would not alternate
> waxing/waning in
> such an obvious manner.
>
> What this might be though (and I wouldn't have thought
> of it if it wasn't
> for your suggestion) is something like the following -
> that the moons
> indicate when the moon rises or is visible, with the
> light circles
> indicating moonrise (say) in the morning and the dark
> ones in the evening.
>
> I shall check out these possibilities probably next
> week when I have a
> little free time.
>
> > Taking a lot for granted, what years between 1400 and
> 1550 would
> > find the moon in the depicted state of change?  Curious?
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
> -------------------------------------o--------------=-
> greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx            __///,_    ==
>            \              \   \    o  / 'QOOO0&_ ==
>            /              /   |      / 0  )OOO0@#==
>           \|              | / /      \__ ,dO0@9" ===
>       ....||..         ...\ | \..       `\\`       ==
>
>
>