Terminology: another word for "azimuthal"

Spherical coordinates are radial (how far from the
centre), azimuthal (measured over 2*pi or 360°
around a reference great circle), and polar (between
+90° and -90° along arcs normal to the reference
great circle). Examples of azimuthal and polar are
longitude and latitude, or right ascension and
declination.

I am editing a text and would like to replace the word
"azimuthal", provided there is an alternative that
would be recognized by most readers. The reason is
that I want to avoid confusion between the terms
"azimuthal", which refers to spherical coordinate
systems in general, and "azimuth", which is a specific
azimuthal coordinate (measured around the
observer's horizon). Is there such an alternative
term?

On Sep 12, 12:45*am, Axel Harvey wrote:
Spherical coordinates are radial (how far from the
centre), azimuthal (measured over 2*pi or 360°
around a reference great circle), and polar (between
+90° and -90° along arcs normal to the reference
great circle). Examples of azimuthal and polar are
longitude and latitude, or right ascension and
declination.

I am editing a text and would like to replace the word
"azimuthal", provided there is an alternative that
would be recognized by most readers. The reason is
that I want to avoid confusion between the terms
"azimuthal", which refers to spherical coordinate
systems in general, and "azimuth", which is a specific
azimuthal coordinate (measured around *the
observer's horizon). Is there such an alternative
term?

The key is the phrase *by most readers*. I'd have to say that there
probably isn't such a term, and it's regrettable because your
conundrum is a very common one. Depending on what field you work in or
what country you come from, the conventions and names can be
different.
My suggestion would be perhaps not to worry so much about naming
things if it is not necessary. If you can define phi and give a good
illustration of it, then simply use the letter phi and not the name
(which is probably simpler and more compact anyways).

HTH,
M

In article ,
Axel Harvey wrote:
Spherical coordinates are radial (how far from the
centre), azimuthal (measured over 2*pi or 360=B0
around a reference great circle), and polar (between
+90=B0 and -90=B0 along arcs normal to the reference
great circle). Examples of azimuthal and polar are
longitude and latitude, or right ascension and
declination.

I am editing a text and would like to replace the word
"azimuthal", provided there is an alternative that
would be recognized by most readers. The reason is
that I want to avoid confusion between the terms
"azimuthal", which refers to spherical coordinate
systems in general, and "azimuth", which is a specific
azimuthal coordinate (measured around the
observer's horizon). Is there such an alternative
term?


Is "polar" recognized as an angle by most readers?
And should "polar" be accompanied with "azimuthal"?
Why not e.g. "equatorial" instead?

You could of course replace both terms by e.g.
"longitudal" and "latitudal", or something similar.
Of course longitude/latitude also refers to one of
several cases of specific coordinates, but at least
people in general are familiar with these terms:
fewer people know what azimuth is than those who know
what longitude is.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

"Axel Harvey" wrote in message
...
Spherical coordinates are radial (how far from the
centre), azimuthal (measured over 2*pi or 360°
around a reference great circle), and polar (between
+90° and -90° along arcs normal to the reference
great circle). Examples of azimuthal and polar are
longitude and latitude, or right ascension and
declination.

I am editing a text and would like to replace the word
"azimuthal", provided there is an alternative that
would be recognized by most readers. The reason is
that I want to avoid confusion between the terms
"azimuthal", which refers to spherical coordinate
systems in general, and "azimuth", which is a specific
azimuthal coordinate (measured around the
observer's horizon). Is there such an alternative
term?
=======================================

Are you going to replace "polar" as well (to avoid confusion
because "pole" is a specific polar coordinate)?

A word to the wise: additional terms create more confusion,
not less. You are not going to replace any terms, you can only
add more. Britain decides to go metric, the USA doesn't.
When it's 30 degrees it's a hot day here and a cold day in the
USA and the public refuses to give up the pint, which is why
I buy milk for my coffee in quantities of 1.136 litres (a quart,
which is NOT a quarter of a US gallon) .
A Roman mile was 1000 paces, an imperial ton is 2240 lbs,
a baker's dozen is 13, but not at my local bakery.
Within a radius of 1.6 km of my home the speed limit is
30 miles per hour. The Canadian speed limit is 100 km/hour
for miles and miles.
The mile will remain because the USA has been laid out on
a grid, the roads are in place.
Start using French if you want to replace English terms, people
simply won't buy your text.

Thanks to all who answered, even if there is no
conclusion. As for "polar" I do, in fact, intend to
use "transverse" instead. I won't use "equatorial"
or "longitud(in)al" for the same reason that I
hesitate to use "azimuthal": these terms all refer
to specific coordinate systems while I wish to
convey a general notion that includes all the
specific ones. Anyway, thanks again.

On Sep 12, 10:49*pm, Axel Harvey wrote:
Thanks to all who answered, even if there is no
conclusion. As for "polar" I do, in fact, intend to
use "transverse" instead. I won't use "equatorial"
or "longitud(in)al" for the same reason that I
hesitate to use "azimuthal": these terms all refer
to specific coordinate systems while I wish to
convey a general notion that includes all the
specific ones. Anyway, thanks again.

When I used to teach courses in practical astronomy and orbital
mechanics, the generic terms I used before getting into the specifics
of longitude, latitude, azimuth, and so on we

fundamental circle
pole of the fundamental circle

On Sep 12, 10:49*pm, Axel Harvey wrote:
Thanks to all who answered, even if there is no
conclusion. As for "polar" I do, in fact, intend to
use "transverse" instead. I won't use "equatorial"
or "longitud(in)al" for the same reason that I
hesitate to use "azimuthal": these terms all refer
to specific coordinate systems while I wish to
convey a general notion that includes all the
specific ones. Anyway, thanks again.

Sorry for the glitch on my first post-- I apparently hit a key that I
wasn't supposed to! So, I'll try again.
When I used to teach practical astronomy and orbital mechanics, before
getting to the specific coordinates of longitude, latitude, azimuth,
and the like, I used generic terms such as the following:

fundamental circle
secondary circle
pole of the fundamental circle

Then we invented names for the various angular distances representing
the desired coordinates. One student used "fundis" and "secdis" ;
another suggested "dafunc" (meaning: distance along fundamental
circle) and "dasecc". Other names were tried, but I don't recall that
any of them lasted very long, and then just in my class.

Maybe this might give you some ideas. Anyway, best wishes in your
activities!

Grover Hughes

In article ,
I am editing a text and would like to replace the word
"azimuthal"

In article ,
(Paul Schlyter) writes:
Is "polar" recognized as an angle by most readers?
And should "polar" be accompanied with "azimuthal"?

I'd say yes.

Why not e.g. "equatorial" instead?

As the OP explained, that refers to a specific coordinate system.

You could of course replace both terms by e.g.
"longitudal" and "latitudal", or something similar.
Of course longitude/latitude also refers to one of
several cases of specific coordinates, but at least
people in general are familiar with these terms:
fewer people know what azimuth is than those who know
what longitude is.

Using these terms might help understanding the OP's text itself, but
it would be bad for readers if they ever encounter standard
terminology. It's probably too late for the OP's purpose now, but
I'd advise writers and editors who adopt non-standard terminology at
least to provide a note to readers mentioning that it's non-standard
and giving the standard equivalents.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)