"Default User" > wrote in message
>>
>> When the solstice was noticed to be the start of a season, December
>> did not exist as we know it today.
>
> So? We're talking about today.
>

But the solar system and the universe is not going to change to suite what
you perceive as a handy calendar. The solstice is a reliable mthod of
marking a date, easty to use to mark as the start of something consistenly.
There is no wishy washy first Tuesday after the first Monday sort of thing.
The seasons are not tied to the calendar as we know it today.



>> The ancients were very attuned to
>> the sky and not the Playboy calendar hanging on the cave wall.
>
> But they didn't run around telling everyone that the solstice was the
> START of winter.

They knew it was the start of something, new season, new year, the days
getting longer. It was something that happened at the same time and was
predictable. They used their powers of observation far more then most of us
do today when it comes to following the seasons.


>
>> The first day of winter may be trivial to you, but it has origins in
>> many societies going back thousands of years. There is good reason
>> to maintain the date for what it is.
>
> You've presented no evidence that the ancients considered that the
> start of winter. Only one (snipped) that had it start of the year.
>
> You're floundering.

Now that is laughable. You evidently don't read well or you'd know how it
became the start of winter. You can put aside the facts in your mind, but
they still exist, no matter how inconvenient for your needs. The solstice
is a mark, the start of a change. No matter what you put on the particular
calendar YOU want to use, the solstice will still come every year. You can
go to 24 months, 18 months, you can make February with 32 days and August
with 15 (eliminate those hot days), but it will not change the solar system.

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> The ancients were very attuned to the sky and not the Playboy calendar
>> hanging on the cave wall. If you happen to be in Machu Picchu during the
>> solsitice you can see the light come in through a cave opening to light a
>> shrine only for the brief time it is in alignment. They designed
>> buildings around the sunrise azmuth of 65 degrees, the solstice at 112
>> degrees and the setting sun at 245 degrees. To those people, December 1
>> would not be a reasonable choice.
>>
>> Similar shrines exist around the word made independent of each others.
>
>
> Wouldn't all those ancient shrines and buildings be off now due to the
> precession of the equinoxes?
>
>
> --Lia
>

I'm not sure. I know precession affects the relationship to the stars, but
I'm not sure how it affects the relationship with our sun. I do know there
is still an alignment, but the time may be off from what it once was. But
then again, just like a clock that does not run still shows the correct time
twice a day, the precession cycle is every 25800 years.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> I'm not sure. I know precession affects the relationship to the stars, but
> I'm not sure how it affects the relationship with our sun. I do know there
> is still an alignment, but the time may be off from what it once was. But
> then again, just like a clock that does not run still shows the correct time
> twice a day, the precession cycle is every 25800 years.


I believe it affects the earth's alignment with the sun. Think about
it. If the axis wobbles, it wobbles in relation to the sun. With a
total cycle of 25800 years (I'd remembered 24000, must have rounded it
off), that's enough to put the stars in a new astrological constellation
every 2150 years. (This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius.) It's
enough to set those ancient archaeological sites noticeably off within a
few hundred years.


--Lia

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
> I believe it affects the earth's alignment with the sun. Think about it.
> If the axis wobbles, it wobbles in relation to the sun. With a total
> cycle of 25800 years (I'd remembered 24000, must have rounded it off),
> that's enough to put the stars in a new astrological constellation every
> 2150 years. (This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius.) It's enough to
> set those ancient archaeological sites noticeably off within a few hundred
> years.
>
>
> --Lia
>

Other factors would come into play, such as the size of the aperture and how
wide of an angle of the sun can pass as well as the arc it follows. I
wonder if any allowance was made since precession was known over 2000 years
ago.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Other factors would come into play, such as the size of the aperture and how
> wide of an angle of the sun can pass as well as the arc it follows. I
> wonder if any allowance was made since precession was known over 2000 years
> ago.


I don't know if any allowance was made. To me, the more interesting
question is how much was known about precession 2000 years ago. I'd
guess that the fact that the night sky changed in slight but noticeable
ways was apparent. But understanding that the earth's axis was changing
in its relationship to the sun? I'm not so sure. That would require
understanding that the earth rotating on an axis, was revolving around
the sun, and that the axis was changing in its relationship to the sun.
I'm not sure that the ancients grasped all that, although they might have.


I've got a copy of _Hamlet's Mill_ somewhere in my basement. I might
have to dig it up and take a look. Or perhaps you can recommend a more
up-to-date source on archaeoastronomy?


--Lia

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > When the solstice was noticed to be the start of a season,
> > > December did not exist as we know it today.
> >
> > So? We're talking about today.
> >
>
> But the solar system and the universe is not going to change to suite
> what you perceive as a handy calendar. The solstice is a reliable
> mthod of marking a date, easty to use to mark as the start of
> something consistenly. There is no wishy washy first Tuesday after
> the first Monday sort of thing. The seasons are not tied to the
> calendar as we know it today.

Ridiculous. There is no scientific or seasonal basis for calling that
first day of winter. None whatsoever. Your attempts to shift the
argument are futile.


> > > The ancients were very attuned to
> > > the sky and not the Playboy calendar hanging on the cave wall.
> >
> > But they didn't run around telling everyone that the solstice was
> > the START of winter.
>
> They knew it was the start of something, new season, new year, the
> days getting longer.

Right. But THEY were smart enough to know it wasn't the start of
winter. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

It was something that happened at the same time
> and was predictable. They used their powers of observation far more
> then most of us do today when it comes to following the seasons.

And got it right.

> Now that is laughable. You evidently don't read well or you'd know
> how it became the start of winter. You can put aside the facts in
> your mind, but they still exist, no matter how inconvenient for your
> needs. The solstice is a mark, the start of a change.

So. What? It isn't the start of winter. That's the point. You keep
trying to evade because you know that you don't really have any basis
for it. Not scientifically. Not according to the ancients.

Now, we have to put with dopey weather people (and others) saying
things like, "can you believe it's so cold on December 12th, when it's
not even winter yet?" In fact, it's been winter for quite some time.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User wrote:
>
> Now, we have to put with dopey weather people (and others) saying
> things like, "can you believe it's so cold on December 12th, when it's
> not even winter yet?" In fact, it's been winter for quite some time.


Is your definition of winter that season when it's cold?
What is your definition of winter?


--Lia

On 24 Dec 2007 22:18:07 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>
>> "Default User" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > I don't know who came with that silly "first day of XX" for the
>> > solstices and equinoxes, but there's absolutely no astronomical or
>> > meterological basis for it.
>>
>> It's just easier to make a known event the start of something rather
>> than the middle of it.
>
>Not really, December first would be a reasonable choice.
>
>> Not much different than having 12 numbers on
>> a clock face.
>
>This doesn't make any sense. Twelve was chosen because it's divisible
>by 2, 3, 4, and 6.
>
>
>
>Brian

no. i think it has to do with the 360 degrees of the globe being
divisible by 24, or 12 if you're not on military time.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 14:01:40 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Default User" > wrote in message
>>>
>> You've presented no evidence that the ancients considered that the
>> start of winter. Only one (snipped) that had it start of the year.
>>
>> You're floundering.
>
>Now that is laughable. You evidently don't read well or you'd know how it
>became the start of winter. You can put aside the facts in your mind, but
>they still exist, no matter how inconvenient for your needs. The solstice
>is a mark, the start of a change. No matter what you put on the particular
>calendar YOU want to use, the solstice will still come every year. You can
>go to 24 months, 18 months, you can make February with 32 days and August
>with 15 (eliminate those hot days), but it will not change the solar system.
>

there was a partial solar eclipse in our area of the eastern seaboard
in 1971. (the area of totality was a couple hundred miles away.) a
group of us marked the occasion by going outdoors and taking l.s.d.
and smoking a bunch of pot.

when the time of greatest totality occurred and it didn't get
completely dark, as one ditzy woman expected, she kept looking at her
watch and saying 'it must be late.'

on the up side, she had nice tits.

your pal,
galileo

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:40:44 +0100, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
>
>"blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
.. .
>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:13:17 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
>> wrote:
>> i'd sleep until march or april if i could. those bears are on to
>> something.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>You and me both, baby, but separate caves as I am after all a lady.--
>http://www.judithgreenwood.com
>

not even a new year's eve boff?

your disappointed pal,
blake

"Default User" > wrote in message
>
> Ridiculous. There is no scientific or seasonal basis for calling that
> first day of winter. None whatsoever. Your attempts to shift the
> argument are futile.

Read what I originally wrote. I stated the solstice is a time marker, a good
time to use as the start of something. I never stated it is winter. Call it
summer, call it Flower Day or Snow Day or whatever you damn well please.
But what you cannot do is deny that is is the start of the change of the
length of the day.



>> They knew it was the start of something, new season, new year, the
>> days getting longer.
>
> Right. But THEY were smart enough to know it wasn't the start of
> winter. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

That is what I said in the beginning. YOU tried to put the word winter in
my mouth. Below is the origina exchange
"Default User" > wrote in message
>
> I don't know who came with that silly "first day of XX" for the
> solstices and equinoxes, but there's absolutely no astronomical or
> meterological basis for it.

It's just easier to make a known event the start of something rather than
the middle of it. Not much different than having 12 numbers on a clock
face.

Note that "winter" was not mentioned.



>
> So. What? It isn't the start of winter. That's the point. You keep
> trying to evade because you know that you don't really have any basis
> for it. Not scientifically. Not according to the ancients.


>
> Now, we have to put with dopey weather people (and others) saying
> things like, "can you believe it's so cold on December 12th, when it's
> not even winter yet?" In fact, it's been winter for quite some time.

Winter in your mind maybe, but not for the rest of us. Since you'd rather
argue something arbitrary rather than use actual facts of what I said, you
may have the last word and therefore "win".

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
> I don't know if any allowance was made. To me, the more interesting
> question is how much was known about precession 2000 years ago. I'd guess
> that the fact that the night sky changed in slight but noticeable ways was
> apparent. But understanding that the earth's axis was changing in its
> relationship to the sun? I'm not so sure. That would require
> understanding that the earth rotating on an axis, was revolving around the
> sun, and that the axis was changing in its relationship to the sun. I'm
> not sure that the ancients grasped all that, although they might have.
>
>
> I've got a copy of _Hamlet's Mill_ somewhere in my basement. I might have
> to dig it up and take a look. Or perhaps you can recommend a more
> up-to-date source on archaeoastronomy?

I sometimes wonder just how little we know in comparison to the ancients.
Sure, we have rocket ships and computers, but given the tools of the day and
the lifespan of humans back then, the powers of observations were
incredible. Watching the sky every night how long does it take to know the
pattern of the seasons and repeatability?

I did just find this though, putting that knowledge at 2300 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession
Discovery of the precession of the equinoxes is generally attributed to the
ancient Greek astronomer Hipparchus (ca. 150 B.C.), though the difference
between the sidereal and tropical years was known to Aristarchus of Samos
much earlier (ca. 280 B.C.). It was later explained by Newtonian physics.
The Earth has a nonspherical shape, being oblate spheroid, bulging outward
at the equator. The gravitational tidal forces of the Moon and Sun apply
torque as they attempt to pull the equatorial bulge into the plane of the
ecliptic. The portion of the precession due to the combined action of the
Sun and the Moon is called lunisolar precession.


Since we don't have written records before that time, could they have known?

Julia Altshuler wrote:

> Default User wrote:
> > Now, we have to put with dopey weather people (and others) saying
> > things like, "can you believe it's so cold on December 12th, when
> > it's not even winter yet?" In fact, it's been winter for quite some
> > time.
>
>
> Is your definition of winter that season when it's cold?
> What is your definition of winter?

Is that somehow a problem for you? I'm not really strongly convinced we
need an "official" start of winter. What actual useful purpose does it
serve?




Brian


--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> >
> > Ridiculous. There is no scientific or seasonal basis for calling
> > that first day of winter. None whatsoever. Your attempts to shift
> > the argument are futile.
>
> Read what I originally wrote. I stated the solstice is a time marker,
> a good time to use as the start of something. I never stated it is
> winter.

So you agree with me then? Because I'm talking about specifics. The
solstice might be a useful start of something, but winter isn't it.

> Call it summer, call it Flower Day or Snow Day or whatever
> you damn well please. But what you cannot do is deny that is is the
> start of the change of the length of the day.

Which I never did, of course. More irrelevancies.

> > Right. But THEY were smart enough to know it wasn't the start of
> > winter. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.
>
> That is what I said in the beginning. YOU tried to put the word
> winter in my mouth. Below is the origina exchange "Default User"
> > wrote in message
> >
> > I don't know who came with that silly "first day of XX" for the
> > solstices and equinoxes, but there's absolutely no astronomical or
> > meterological basis for it.
>
> It's just easier to make a known event the start of something rather
> than the middle of it. Not much different than having 12 numbers on
> a clock face.
>
> Note that "winter" was not mentioned.

No, but *I* mentioned winter, and you followed right along without
mentioning any change topic. If the "it" you mention was something
else, then you should provided an antecedent.

I've trashed your arguments, now you're trying to pretend like you were
arguing something else.

Quit while you're behind.

> > Now, we have to put with dopey weather people (and others) saying
> > things like, "can you believe it's so cold on December 12th, when
> > it's not even winter yet?" In fact, it's been winter for quite some
> > time.
>
> Winter in your mind maybe, but not for the rest of us.


You're going to tell me that most people don't consider the middle of
December to be winter. I don't believe that's true.

> Since you'd
> rather argue something arbitrary rather than use actual facts of what
> I said, you may have the last word and therefore "win".

More evasion from you. I am and have been arguing something VERY
specific. You are the one that has dragged in various irrelevant
discussions. I win, but because I'm right and have been all along.

Deal with it.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User wrote:
> Julia Altshuler wrote:

>>Is your definition of winter that season when it's cold?
>>What is your definition of winter?
>
>
> Is that somehow a problem for you? I'm not really strongly convinced we
> need an "official" start of winter. What actual useful purpose does it
> serve?


No, no problem. I asked because I've noticed that in usenet arguments,
it's possible to have two people who seem to be in disagreement going
back and forth. Both will seem like reasonable, intelligent people. I
start to wonder if the root of the disagreement is that they're talking
about different things, that they have different definitions of basic
terms. I'd define winter as that part of the solar year that falls
between the winter solstice and the spring equinox. When you said that
December 12th fell in winter, I wondered what your defintion of winter
was, if maybe you'd redefined it as any period that's cold in the
northern hemisphere, so that it would be possible to be winter in one
area but still spring somewhere else.


--Lia

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Since we don't have written records before that time, could they have known?


They could have. It's one of those unproveable, speculative things that
I love. It also brings up more questions:


Which societies do we mean when we say "ancients"?
Which members of those societies? Look at the amount of disagreement on
any given subject amongst members of our own society, and you can
imagine that the folks back then had a similar situation.
Might it be possible that then, as now, people came to similar
conclusions based on different assumptions? In other words, people
might notice that the night sky was changing, but they might have other
explanations besides the earth's rotation, revolution, and the axis's
precession?


--Lia

Julia Altshuler wrote:


> No, no problem. I asked because I've noticed that in usenet
> arguments, it's possible to have two people who seem to be in
> disagreement going back and forth.

Sometimes.

> Both will seem like reasonable, intelligent people.

Are you sure you're talking about ME?

> I'd define winter as
> that part of the solar year that falls between the winter solstice
> and the spring equinox.

The gist of my argument was that that definition of "winter" makes no
sense. Again, there's no astronomical or meterological basis for it.

> When you said that December 12th fell in
> winter, I wondered what your defintion of winter was, if maybe you'd
> redefined it as any period that's cold in the northern hemisphere, so
> that it would be possible to be winter in one area but still spring
> somewhere else.

Still fall, I think you mean.

The point of minimum insolation is the winter solstice. If the earth
were an instant heating device, then that would be midpoint of winter.
However, there's an effect called "temperature lag". It takes the mass
of the earth's surface, especially the oceans, time to heat up and cool
down. This shifts the actual coldest part of the year in most of the
northern hemisphere to somewhere in January.

So when the "start" of winter is late December, you have about one
month to the coldest part of the year, then two months following it,
all considered official "winter". No real sense behind it.

In my example of mid-December, that's closer to the actual midpoint of
winter, as determined by the climate, than some "offical" winter days.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"cybercat" > wrote:
>
> I need to try Bison.

Knowing some folks keep water buffalos for mozzarella
di bufala, I want to try some water buffalo roast. That
and I want one of the horns as a huge drinking horn.

Julia Altshuler > wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> > *The ancients were very attuned to the sky and
> > not the Playboy calendar hanging on the cave wall.

That depends on the indivdual. Some cave art is quite
erotic.

> > If you happen to be in
> > Machu Picchu during the solsitice you can see the light come in through a
> > cave opening to light a shrine only for the brief time it is in alignment.

Julia Altshuler > wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> > Since we don't have written records before that time, could they have known?

Depending on the region, written records in hieroglyphs,
cunnieform and so on go back a couple of millenia before
then.

> They could have. *It's one of those unproveable, speculative things that
> I love. *It also brings up more questions:

In particular once written records spanned at least a
thousand years it starts getting likelier and likelier it
was noticed.

My favorite theory is the Mithraic religion popular late
republic and early empire Rome was based on it. Their
symbols have so much in common with the names of
the constellations involved. That would put the discovery
sometime in the range of 500-1500 BCE.

> Which societies do we mean when we say "ancients"?

Depends on your viewpoint. Anywhere from before I was born
on back.

> Which members of those societies? *Look at the amount of disagreement on
> any given subject amongst members of our own society, and you can
> imagine that the folks back then had a similar situation.

Except astromonical observations are hard data.

> Might it be possible that then, as now, people came to similar
> conclusions based on different assumptions? *In other words, people
> might notice that the night sky was changing, but they might have other
> explanations besides the earth's rotation, revolution, and the axis's
> precession?

Could be phrased like this - Something drives the dome of fixed
stars to move gradually against the sun's path. Since orbits and
revolutions and such were not known until recent centuries it had
to be about what constellation was in what equinox in what century.

And about what they were cooking at the time. I keep reading
about specific plants or animals domesticated in a certain range
of time. Go back far enough and folks had to have been eating a
lot of local wildly growing plants.

Default User wrote:
> Julia Altshuler wrote:

>>Both will seem like reasonable, intelligent people.
>
>
> Are you sure you're talking about ME?


No.


> The gist of my argument was that that definition of "winter" makes no
> sense. Again, there's no astronomical or meterological basis for it.


If you open the dictionary, you'll find that the vast majority of the
words in it have no sensible reasons for their definitions. There's no
astronomical or meterological basis for the definitions of "medalist"
and "diastema" either. That doesn't mean that their definitions somehow
aren't real or that people don't know what they mean. (This is a food
group. How about "hamburger" or "horseradish" for examples?)


>>When you said that December 12th fell in
>>winter, I wondered what your defintion of winter was, if maybe you'd
>>redefined it as any period that's cold in the northern hemisphere, so
>>that it would be possible to be winter in one area but still spring
>>somewhere else.
>
>
> Still fall, I think you mean.


No, I meant winter. I was going back to your words he


"Now, we have to put with dopey weather people (and others) saying
things like, "can you believe it's so cold on December 12th, when it's
not even winter yet?" In fact, it's been winter for quite some time."


Anyway, I do intend to let you have the last word on this. I wanted to
understand what you were saying better, and now I do understand you
better. I don't agree, but that's not going to make the evening news.


--Lia

Julia Altshuler wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > The gist of my argument was that that definition of "winter" makes
> > no sense. Again, there's no astronomical or meterological basis for
> > it.
>
>
> If you open the dictionary, you'll find that the vast majority of the
> words in it have no sensible reasons for their definitions. There's
> no astronomical or meterological basis for the definitions of
> "medalist" and "diastema" either.

But those are not used in such a context. Winter, and the "start" of
winter, are. You're just as skillful at dragging in irrelevant
information as Edwin.

> > > When you said that December 12th fell in
> > > winter, I wondered what your defintion of winter was, if maybe
> > > you'd redefined it as any period that's cold in the northern
> > > hemisphere, so that it would be possible to be winter in one area
> > > but still spring somewhere else.
> >
> >
> > Still fall, I think you mean.
>
>
> No, I meant winter. I was going back to your words he

So you meant to say, "so that it would be possible to be winter in one
area but still WINTER somewhere else"? I don't think so. My quibble was
with "still spring". If you had said "still but spring somewhere else"
I'd have had no problem.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Default User" > wrote in message
>
> You're just as skillful at dragging in irrelevant
> information as Edwin.

It's a skill. We were both blessed.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> >
> > You're just as skillful at dragging in irrelevant
> > information as Edwin.
>
> It's a skill. We were both blessed.






Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)