Ah hah! (?)
First off, thanks everybody for sending replies to my latitude/longitude and pronunciation emails! I didn't know how interesting all the dial list replies to the latter would be! I think I have just figured out the analemma...I understood the sun's apparent motion vertically throughout the year, but never could figure out the rest of the "figure eight". After looking at www.analemma.com for awhile, I realized how the east/west motion is simply that our earth moves faster around the sun during some parts of the year, then slows as it drifts farther away and falls back towards it again. So a spin from sun-noon to sun-noon is slightly over/under 360 degrees... I think the analemma web site said that the reason was that our orbit was elliptical, but this was confusing to me. I now don't believe that's *quite* right--even if we orbited in a perfect circle around the sun, but for some strange reason moved at different rates in our orbit, we could still get the analemma effect. In reality, however, it's this elliptical orbit that causes the speed differences--we literally fall towards the sun, and slingshot back away until we slow down and fall back in. *wow* One question if anybody can answer--when was the analemma realised? That is, there must have been clocks that were known to be accurate, in order to prove the effect. Was it at this time that the phenomena was discovered, or was it discovered/would it be possible to be understood before then?
Re: Act of 1752
The year 1800 wouldn't be a leap year under the Gregorian calendar because 18 is not a mutliple of 4. Would England have adopted the Gregorian calendar right from the start in 1582 then 1600 would have been the first centennial leap year. Did you know that by the same act of Parliament in 1751 the start of the year was changed from 25 March to 1 Januari, commencing in 1752 ? At 16:03 15-11-99 -0700, you wrote: -Original Message/Oorspronkelijk bericht-- >Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the treatment of 1800 as a >normal year was a result of the Gregorian reform in England and her >colonies, but not the treatment of year 2000 as a leap year? Under >both Julian and Gregorian systems 2000 would be a leap year. > >Furthermore, the treatment of 1800 as a normal year was not the first >effect of the legislation. September 1752 was very interesting, as >demonstrated by the UNIX cal program > > % cal 9 1752 > September 1752 >S M Tu W Th F S > 1 2 14 15 16 > 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 > 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 > >Jim40N45, 111W53 >=-= >Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your >own. You may both be wrong. -- Dandemis > >Frank Evans wrote: >> Greetings fellow dialists and calendrists, >> >> A note about the millennium leap year that I recently came across in the >> journal History Today: When the next leap day arrives, on 29 February >> 2000, it will be, for Britain, the result of the adoption of the >> Gregorian calendar in 1752. By then most other European countries had >> already embraced the new calendar. The Act of Parliament which causes >> this first centenial leap year since then to take place was passed 248 >> years and 3 months ago. Is this the longest delayed action legislation >> ever? By the way, the 1752 Act also applied to the UK Colonies >> including America (no offence intended). >> >> Frank 55N 1W >> -- >> Frank Evans > - Thibaud Taudin-Chabot 52°18'19.85" North 04°51'09.45" East home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (attachments max. 500kB; for larger attachments contact me first)
?
The following was accidentally sent to the 'majordomo' address. Apologies for any confusion arising. T. Subject: ? Sent:17/11/99 1:10 am To: Sundial Mail List, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Our wonderful mailing list is (as you may have guessed) a significant aspect of my life and I've often wondered how it came about initially. What/when/why/how/whowas/were involved in the 'big bang' of the ever-expanding Sundial Mailing List? Tony Moss
Re: Act of 1752
Thibaud Taudin-Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The year 1800 wouldn't be a leap year under the Gregorian calendar because > 18 is not a mutliple of 4. Yes, this agrees with what I said about 1800 being treated as a normal year in England as a result of her adoption the Gregorian reform. >Would England have adopted the Gregorian > calendar right from the start in 1582 then 1600 would have been the first > centennial leap year. Regardless of adoption of the Gregorian change 1600 would have been a leap year--under both the Julian and Gregorian rules 1600 is a leap year (as is 2000, which is what began this thread of discussion). The first century non-leap year for early adopters of the reform was 1700. However, 1700 was treated as a leap year in England and other late adopters. That is the reason England had one more day of adjustment when the reform was finally adopted. > Did you know that by the same act of Parliament in 1751 the start of the > year was changed from 25 March to 1 Januari, commencing in 1752 ? Yes. Jim 40N45, 111W53 --- -- | Jim Cobb | 540 Arapeen Dr. #100 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Parametric| Salt Lake City, UT | (801)-588-4632 | | Technology Corp. | 84108-1202 | Fax (801)-588-4650 | --- -- You can't have everything. Where would you put it? -- Steven Wright
