O.K., trivia question:
The Roman Emperor thought that the shortest day of the year was Dec. 25th. Yet we see it as December 20th or 21st. Why?
Hint: the observations of his astronomers was probably correct, as are ours.
Two possible reasons:
1. Precession of the solstices
2. Innaccuracy of the calendar w/regards to the way they did leap years.
When Pope Gregory XIII came up with the calendar reform in 1582, his purpose was to get the date of the vernal equinox back to where it was in A.D. 325, when the Council of Nicaea had set the rules for calculating the date of Easter.
Wild guess, but I'd say the additional days added to July, August and a couple others, pushed 12/25 back that many days, but obviously not the actual solstice.
O.K., trivia question:
The Roman Emperor thought that the shortest day of the year was Dec. 25th. Yet we see it as December 20th or 21st. Why?
Hint: the observations of his astronomers was probably correct, as are ours"""
Karrl Rove changed it?
The Roman Emperor thought that the shortest day of the year was Dec. 25th. Yet we see it as December 20th or 21st. Why?
Hint: the observations of his astronomers was probably correct, as are ours
The 25th is the day the sunset begins to occur later. Between the 20th an 25th the day lengthens by an earlier occuring dawn
"O.K., trivia question:
The Roman Emperor thought that the shortest day of the year was Dec. 25th. Yet we see it as December 20th or 21st. Why?
Hint: the observations of his astronomers was probably correct, as are ours."
Fascinating question, but to answer it requires asking questions.
When you say "the Roman Emperor thought that the shortest day of the years was December 25", do you mean by that, that if he consulted his Roman calendar of the time (this would have to be post-Augustus), that the solstice would have fallen on December 25? Or do you mean that if we were to project our calendar back to the Roman time, that the shortest day of the year would have been on December 25, by our reckoning of time, and not theirs?
Either your question relates to the change in the calendar, or it relates to the relative change in motion of the earth relative to the sun.
And in truth, a proper relates to both things. Even were the calendars identical then and now, and not have been changed at all in the interim, the precise times that certain celestial events occurred would differ, at least slightly, because things have moved about, the earth rotates a bit slower, the position of things relative to the sun is a little bit different, etc.
I don't know that 3000 years is enough to make for 3 days difference, but it will be interesting to hear your answer.
Precesion [sp] of the Earth on its axis.
Because when the calendar was changed, we added three days.
bump for later reading
bump for later reading
Just differences of days with the old Julian (Roman) calender, that's all.