POSTSCRIPTUM

Re: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/book/grc../1983//

"The Proceedings of the Vatican Conference to Commemorate the 400th Anniversary of the Gregorian Reform of the Calendar”

First of all, I should say that I admire and respect the skills and the determination of those people who made the much needed Calendar Reform possible. From a modern point of view it must have been a difficult task for these early astronomers and mathematicians to accurately observe and compute exact celestial periods. But the real difficulty is when traditional beliefs and presumed and expected results of sane human logic contradict the concrete results of all the cosmic laws and processes. This is a very ancient yet modern problem.

Secondly, I am glad to see that the document confirms the fact that at the time of the Council of Nicaea the vernal equinox occurred on March 21st, because the wise Alexandrian scholars like Sosigenes still possessed the astronomical knowledge to keep it on that calendar day!

Thirdly, I am sad but not surprised to hear that according to the interpretations of some of the experts who contributed to the ‘Proceedings of the Vatican Conference’ “No ancient year length whatever is reported close to the actual tropical year.” (K.P. Moesgaard, p.11)

These modern experts believe that the ancient astronomers, who had really no clue about the exact rate of precession, supposedly knew the precise length of the sidereal year, yet calculated a bunch of different, imprecise and presumably varying time intervals for the tropical year.

“Copernicus himself gives the value of 365d 6h 9m 40s […] and this is about 30 seconds greater than the value now used [365.25636]” – E. Proverbio, p. 132)

“Copernicus’ measure of the tropical year, variable as it was, had to appear problematic for the purpose of a calendar reform. In return Copernicus learned to explain the assumed variations in the rate of precession by long term tiltings of the earth’s axis. So the chronometric problems clinging to Ptolomy’s pseudo-tropical year provided Copernicus with a key motive for adopting a heliostatic cosmology” (K.P. Moesgaard, p.13)

But despite such extraordinary opinions, in 1577 CE the papal calendar reformers needed for their Compendium novae rationis restituendi Kalendrium an accurate time period that was in synch with the vernal equinox, which was fixed on March 21st from 45 BCE to 325 CE. However, the timing was bad. The Fathers of the Church had lost the knowledge of Alexandrian astronomy and the knowledge about Mayan astronomy was lost to the Conquistadors.

Perhaps it was providence that wisdom had to come from the East.

Because finally, I am extremely pleased to learn that “there is one thorough criticism to the Compendium which has never been well described in the history of the calendar reform.” (A. Ziggelaar, p 215 – “The Criticism by Patriarch Ignatius”).

The comments by Ignatius (his original name was Na’amatallah, and he signed the report of the commission dated 14 September, 1580 in Arabic and in Chaldean) are as wise as the person himself. Ignatius showed that the conjunction of sun and moon does not mark the beginning of the month and thus revealed the “greatest error” of the Compendium.

It was also made clear that the “Compendium believes that the mean motion of the sun is irregular and hence the length of the year variable. But this has to be attributed to the instruments of observation. A long series of observations in the East, from 708 to 1472, establish that the length of the year is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 53 5/12 seconds” (A. Ziggelaar, p 217 – “The Criticism by Patriarch Ignatius” - “The Papal Bull of 1582 Promulgating a Reform of the Calendar”).

Well, that’s only 7.45 seconds greater than the value now used (31,556,925.9747 s)! There was no need to know about any changing rate of precession or a variable sidereal year when the extremely stable duration of the tropical year is Earth’s true 360 degree orbit around the Sun.

It is a simple mathematical and astronomical fact that the length of the tropical year does NOT depend upon the rate of precession.

Uwe Homann

page 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7