[net.space] Precession of the equinoxes

@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:FRIEDRITR%VAXJ.GATNET.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA (07/30/85)

From: FRIEDRITR%VAXJ.GATNET.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA



I probably won't be the first or only one to point this out, but the precession
of the equinoxes has NOTHING to do with the fact that only one century year out
of four is a leap year.  The reason the Gregorian calendar adopted this
artifice is strictly due to the fact that the year is really 365.2422 days long,
and not 365.25 as would be required if every fourth year were a leap year,
including the century years.

However, the respondent was right in saying that the precession of the
equinoxes is probably the phenomenon the original questioner is referring to.
I don't know how precisely this is calculated, or even how precisely it CAN
be calculated, due to the complicating factors of solar and lunar gravity,
as well as that of the planets, and the fact that the interior of the Earth
is not a rigid solid.  The precession of the equinoxes is the same precession
seen in any other gyroscope, except for the above factors.

Terry

@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA (08/05/85)

From: FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA

First, to set the record straight, the precession of the equinoxes
was discovered by Hipparkhos in about 150 BC.

The phenomenon has nothing to do with the earth's axial tilt, which does
change, but only slightly.  It rather concerns the direction the axis
points in space, which makes a slow circle once every 22000 years or so,
thereby taking the pole star from Polaris round to Vega.  This of course
makes no difference to the terrestrial seasons, which depend on the
relative positions of earth and sun, and therefore no difference to any
true solar calendar, ie one that sets its starting point with reference to
something like the winter solstice.

However, what does change is the relative position of sun and stars at any
given season; thus, in Hipparkhos' time the vernal equinox began as the
sun entered the Zodiacal sign of Pisces, whereas 2000 years earlier it
had occurred when the sun entered Aries (and by about 2050 I think the sun
will still be in Aquarius).  This of course makes nonsense of traditional
astrology; since no astrologer seems to have looked at the real sky in
several millenia, the dates given in your daily paper for 'Aries' &c are
wildly wrong.

Interestingly, one calendar WAS subject to discombobulation by the precession
of the equinoxes: the Egyptian calendar, which set the new year at the time
of the heliacal rising of the star Sirius, at which time the Nile was supposed
to flood.  Well, between Narmer and Ptolemy I the precession had moved this
date by almost 7 weeks through the solar year.  For this and other reasons,
Ptolemy V Epiphanes replaced the calendar with one that took the vernal
equinox as the new year, keeping however the 12 'months' and the five
intercalary days; it was this calendar that, on the advice of the astronomer
Sosigenes, Julius Caesar introduced to Rome, and which became essentially the
Julian calendar.

On the motion of the poles: the magnetic poles move around all the time, but
I don't think anyone believes the true poles move.  There is an SF book,
The HAB Theory, built arond the idea that the poles suddenly move a large
distance in a catastrophic manner (or maybe the poles stay in the same place
but the earth's crust moves; the book isn't clear on this).  Naturally, such
an event wrecks civilisations, &c, so if you think one is coming, sell your
orichalcum-mining stock and build a deep shelter some place like the Andes,
for convenient later discovery by E von Daeniken.

The book is very long and very bad, but has a lot of fun fabricating "evidence"
in support of the "theory"

Robert Firth
-------

gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (08/07/85)

--
> First, to set the record straight, the precession of the equinoxes
> was discovered by Hipparkhos in about 150 BC...
> 
> However, what does change is the relative position of sun and stars at any
> given season; thus, in Hipparkhos' time the vernal equinox began as the
> sun entered the Zodiacal sign of Pisces, whereas 2000 years earlier it
> had occurred when the sun entered Aries (and by about 2050 I think the sun
> will still be in Aquarius).  This of course makes nonsense of traditional
> astrology; since no astrologer seems to have looked at the real sky in
> several millenia, the dates given in your daily paper for 'Aries' &c are
> wildly wrong.

Well, just to set the record straight (and *not* to get into any
discussion on the worth of astrology), astrologers have long been
aware of said precession, and define "Aries" as that slice of the
celestial sphere between 0h and 2h RA, "Taurus" between 2h and 4h,
etc.  The actual stellar background to these slices is considered
irrelevant.  Galileo was also an astrologer, you know, although
apparently not quite as good at it as he was at science.  He
is supposed to have seen in the stars a long and prosperous life for
some duke who employed him.  The duke died two weeks later.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  07 Aug 85 [20 Thermidor An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7753     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***

@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:Lynn.ES@Xerox.ARPA (08/08/85)

From: Lynn.ES@Xerox.ARPA

Contrary to previous statements made here, the precession of the
equinoxes IS related to the Gregorian Calendar.  Without precession, the
seasons would reoccur every 365.2564 days (a sidereal year), and thus
occasional EXTRA leap years would be needed to cause the average year to
be more than 365.25 days.  With precession, the seasons reoccur every
365.2422 days, and thus occasional dropped leap years are needed (3 out
of every 4 century years are dropped).  

In other words, the earth reaches the point where its pole points most
nearly toward the sun (beginning of summer) slightly earlier due to
precession (movement of the direction of that pole).  Another way of
viewing it is that our seasons cycle 25,799 times while we make 25,800
trips around the sun, the difference of one being that our axis rotated
once in that time period due to precession.

/Don Lynn