Question about winter solstice

On 3 Jan, 19:48, wrote:
Hello group,

I was kinda pondering this question in my mind for a while, but I hope
someone learned here can put this to rest for me
Due to precession of the equinox (I think somewhat of 50 arcseconds
per year?) the first point of aries always goes backwards on the
ecliptic. So now I'm thinking does that mean that the winter solstice
will fall in a different month from December if we travelled many
hundreds or few thousands of years either backwards or forward in
time?

In our times, it seems to be on December 21st/22nd every year, but
would this have been the case say around 5,000 BC when the pyramids
were being built? Does our calendar year (Jan-Dec) always mean summer
solstice will ALWAYS be in June and winter solstice ALWAYS in
December?

Well I sure would appreciate your correction for me non-expert!

There is a tropical year and a sideral year. You are right, because of
precession the two are not the same. A calander year is TROPICAL, that
is to say the solistice is June 21/22 and Dec 21/22. Leap etc. yesrs
are put in to ensure this happens accurately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_year

The sideral year is different because of precession. The sideral year
is the true time for a revolution round the Sun. Jan 4th is the
closest approach to the Sun. Alice Springs receives more solar energy
then than Saudi does on July 4th. 13,000 years ago Saudi received more
energy.

When the Pyramids were built star signs were different (about 3
months) but the seasons were not as we reckon in tropical years.

BTW - Horoscopes are now 1 month out. They have not been revised in
2,000 years.


- Ian Parker

In uk.sci.astronomy message , Sat, 3 Jan
2009 17:26:43, Ralph posted:

if you used our present calendar, which was modified in 1583 to the
tune of 11 days under pope Gregory.

The present calendar was decreed (by Pope Gregory XIII) and commenced
(in places) in 1582, with 10 dates being then omitted.

Those making the change in March 1700 to February 1800 would have
omitted 11 days; in 1800-1900, 12 days. But Alaska simultaneously moved
from longitude 210 East to 150 West, thereby omitting 11 dates and
having two consecutive days being Friday with dates differing by 12
days.

As a neighbour of Alaska, can you confirm that the jump was 1867/10/06
to 1867-10-18?

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

On Jan 4, 4:33*am, oriel36 wrote:
You got that backwards,the calendar system drifts against the seasons
and that is why the 24 hour day is added every 4th year to reset the
annual cycle to the human devised 24 hour day cycle and its 365/366
day calendar outrigger.

Adding an extra 24 hour day every 4th year (except three out of four
of every 100th year) is *part* of the (human devised) calendar system,
which avoids drifting against the seasons by doing so.

John Savard

wrote:

Hello group,

I was kinda pondering this question in my mind for a while, but I hope
someone learned here can put this to rest for me
Due to precession of the equinox (I think somewhat of 50 arcseconds
per year?)

Yep, about that.

the first point of aries always goes backwards on the
ecliptic. So now I'm thinking does that mean that the winter solstice
will fall in a different month from December if we travelled many
hundreds or few thousands of years either backwards or forward in
time?

No, because the year is ultimately anchored to the first point of
Aries. As the first point of Aries slidles along the ecliptic,
January 1st slides the same amount. Thus, the months do not change
relative to the solstices and equinoxes, but the constellations
visible in the sky at those times do change.
--
Dave

On Jan 4, 7:09*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
wrote:

Hello group,

I was kinda pondering this question in my mind for a while, but I hope
someone learned here can put this to rest for me
Due to precession of the equinox (I think somewhat of 50 arcseconds
per year?)

Yep, about that.

the first point of aries always goes backwards on the
ecliptic. So now I'm thinking does that mean that the winter solstice
will fall in a different month from December if we travelled many
hundreds or few thousands of years either backwards or forward in
time?

No, because the year is ultimately anchored to the first point of
Aries. *As the first point of Aries slidles along the ecliptic,
January 1st slides the same amount. *Thus, the months do not change
relative to the solstices and equinoxes, but the constellations
visible in the sky at those times do change.
--
Dave

Great! So Christmas will always fall within a few days from the winter
solstice, indefinitely, right? If the Gregorian calendar was fixed as
late as 1582, how can we be certain the birth of Christ fell on
December 25th going back to 0 AD? Is it an extrapolation of the
Gregorian calendar going back to that time that scientists have
determined?

The other thing is the Earth being at perihelion on January 4th every
year. That must again stay FIXED at around this date froever, because
last I checked the orbital elements of the Earth, the longitude of
perihelion does not change more than 0.0001 degrees per century.

cheers all for your thoughtful and very elaborate answers!

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 12:54:37 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Great! So Christmas will always fall within a few days from the winter
solstice, indefinitely, right? If the Gregorian calendar was fixed as
late as 1582, how can we be certain the birth of Christ fell on
December 25th going back to 0 AD?

Many historians doubt such a person even existed. But assuming that
Jesus is based on a real person, no biblical scholar considers him to
have been born in December, nor in winter, nor in 1 CE (0 CE isn't a
valid date, the year before 1 CE was 1 BCE). The reasons behind the
choice of date for Christmas are unrelated to celebrating an actual
anniversary date.

The other thing is the Earth being at perihelion on January 4th every
year. That must again stay FIXED at around this date froever, because
last I checked the orbital elements of the Earth, the longitude of
perihelion does not change more than 0.0001 degrees per century.

The position of perihelion shifts 360° with respect to the seasons over
21,000 years, or a day every 60 years. Perihelion and aphelion are not
fixed with respect to the calendar.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jan 4, 1:54*pm, wrote:
If the Gregorian calendar was fixed as
late as 1582, how can we be certain the birth of Christ fell on
December 25th going back to 0 AD?

The Scriptural evidence shows that Christ was born in the *spring*.
Christmas is celebrated on December 25 to compete with the pagan
festival of the Saturnalia, celebrated just past the winter solstice.

John Savard

The Scriptural evidence shows that Christ was born in the *spring*.
Christmas is celebrated on December 25 to compete with the pagan
festival of the Saturnalia, celebrated just past the winter solstice.

John Savard

Define "Christ". Clearly, some dude never existed who turned
water into wine (sans viticulture), raised a guy from the dead,
and converted 2 fishes and 5 loaves of bread into a spread for
5000 hungry people, or made a lame guy walk. So that one never was.

Based on that, IMO we can safely say that the biblical Jesus never
existed.

So the whole thing falls apart, revealed for the wicked, mendacious
Sunday school lie, designed to subdue children, that it always was,
and was designed to be.

Fight it: It's a big LIE, and more people have died as a result of it
than would've died if some evil agant had never dreamed up the whole
story.

Look at these fools in England fighting over whether women should be allowed
to become bishops! You couldn't make this stuff up! "Love thy neighbour" -
but bitch and whine about thy female neighbour wanting to spread "God"'s
word! Hypocrite, pious, chest-beating pharisees, all of them. There are so many
sects and divisions in the Christian church that it's laughable, given that
they're all supposedly pushing the same loving "god". The irony is, well,
my irony meter is pegged and smoking. Christians' stupidity is the most
majestic and impressive feature of the whole issue. I remember being forced,
with my sister, to attend church and Sunday school every Sunday morning, and
after the service, the congregation would mill around in St. Luke's (Rochester)
church hall. And gossip. And bitch about each other. In "god's house"! For
****'s sake, what were these people doing? What was a child to think of what
it saw and heard there? These people, by the definition of their own teachings,
were the worst kind of sinners! I still can't believe what went on! And I was
supposed to buy into that?


Martin - who HATES religion
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

wrote:

On Jan 4, 7:09*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:

... the year is ultimately anchored to the first point of
Aries. *As the first point of Aries slidles along the ecliptic,
January 1st slides the same amount. *Thus, the months do not change
relative to the solstices and equinoxes, but the constellations
visible in the sky at those times do change.

Great! So Christmas will always fall within a few days from the winter
solstice, indefinitely, right?

As long as we don't switch to some other calendar, sure.

If the Gregorian calendar was fixed as
late as 1582, how can we be certain the birth of Christ fell on
December 25th going back to 0 AD? Is it an extrapolation of the
Gregorian calendar going back to that time that scientists have
determined?

Science has not determined anything about the birth of Christ. That's
a matter of faith, not science. One cannot be scientifically certain
of the date of Christ's birth--or, for that matter, that he even
existed.

For religious purposes, however, none of that matters. Reliegion
isn't driven by proof, but by faith. If the adherents of Christianity
think Christ was born on Dec 25th in 4 BCE, that's good enough.

The other thing is the Earth being at perihelion on January 4th every
year. That must again stay FIXED at around this date froever, because
last I checked the orbital elements of the Earth, the longitude of
perihelion does not change more than 0.0001 degrees per century.

The perihelion is anchored to the ecliptic itself, not to the first
point of Aries. Since the first point of Aries--and thus the
seasons--slide along the ecliptic while the perihelion remains
stationary on the ecliptic, the perihelion moves with respect to the
seasons.
--
Dave

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 22:03:24 -0000, "Fleetie"
wrote:

Define "Christ".

The name is a religious one. No honest historian or biblical scholar
would use it outside of a religious context.

Based on that, IMO we can safely say that the biblical Jesus never
existed.

We can say with certainty that the stories about Jesus found in the New
Testament are at least somewhat inaccurate. And we can say that there is
essentially no historical evidence that such a person actually existed.
But we can't safely say that the character in the Bible isn't based on a
real person. That question simply remains open, and may always remain
so.

Saying with certainty that Jesus never existed is as intellectually
dishonest as saying with certainty that he did.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com