Concerning the leap day

From experience it is found that many commentators on the calendar
system simply ignore that in order to determine the annual orbital
cycle as 365 days 5 hours and 49 minutes (approx) that the equable 24
hour clock day must of necessity be determined first.

The principles of the equable 24 hour day are wonderfully
understandable and compliment the appreceation of the calendar system
with its leap day added every 4 years the necessity of which was
recognised in antiquity.

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

The determination of the equable 24 hour day relies only on the annual
orbital cycle without the need to consider fraction of days.The
Equation of Time adjustment is the mathematical bridge that takes
advantage of this orbital loop system and what the Equation does is
facilitate the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next 24
hour day,Monday into Tuesday,one astronomical day to the next
astronomical day ect.

Many may wish to consider what happens to the fraction of days leading
up to the neccesity of a leap day every four years.The answer is that
the calendar system is an extension of the geometric/astronomical 24
hour clock day,geometric insofar as it is based on the 24 hour/360
degree equivalency for the rotation of the Earth,astronomical insofar
as the Sun in tandem with the Equation of Time is used as a reference
for rotation and the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency.In other words
there is no leap day or leap second to consider for the calendar
system is less geometrical and astronomical then the basis for the
equable 24 hour day and why clocks are set to that pace.

Unfortunately astronomers in the era of Maskelyne introduced an axial
tilt component into the Equation of Time to facilitate the adoption of
the sidereal value which has snowballed to a degree where
contemporaries give the incorrect value for the rotation of the Earth
through 360 degrees as 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

It needs but two graphics to illustrate the error,one presents the
astronomical justification for the sidereal value and constant axial
rotation wrt the Sun and constant orbital displacement which is in
direct conflict with Kepler's second law for orbital motion.

http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/sidereal.gif

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm

Any astronomer would recognise that adopting the sidereal
justification,which most physicists do, creates the most awful
consequences in terms of modelling celestial motions.As the error is
most understandable visually it remains only that the correction is
long overdue whether by amateur or proffesional it does not matter
otherwise we remain astronomically the most inept race of people ever
to set foot on the planet,no offense intended.