On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:19:22 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote: > > Yes, in the same way that inches and millimetres are the same system but > with a constant of about 25.4 between > > them! :-) > > Yes. But inches also have a change in scaling constant when you change to > feet, and another when you change to yards. (Arguably degrees have too when > you change to minutes and seconds but in practice fractional degrees are > used as an essential part of using them in calculations). But there's no need to change to feet or yards - I can say that a thing is two yards, six feet, or 72 inches long, without losing precision, in the same way as I can say that something is two metres or 2000mm - it's just that the Imperial measures aren't related by powers of ten. I don't see that it makes them different! > > > .... I'm told by people who genrerally > > > get it right that they ALL changed to a 365 day year some time around > 1400 > > > BC. Suggestions are that there may have been a major interplanetary > > > resonance with Mars involved and a consequent transfer of energy. > > > ....Suggested dates for closest > > > interaction, depending on who you listen to, are October 25th 1404 BC > > > or July 22nd 1443 BC. I find it very hard to believe that a change this drastic (about 1.4%) would happen in one event when nothing has happened since, not even recently when we've had several-planet alignment, plus Mars' closest approach, and nothing whatsoever seems to have changed. Not to mention the enormous strain on the structure of Earth, which ought to have caused all sorts of seismic upsets that (as far as I know) haven't been recorded. Not to mention that it would have needed a change in Earth's orbital radius of about 2.6million miles (about 4.1million km!)... unless you're saying that the spin speed increased rather than the orbit slowed? > > I think the Balylonians just had it wrong, and corrected it when they > realised, .. > > Perhaps. But they had the 360 day year for a long time and it would have > been totally obvious to them within a decade if they had it worong and a > nmber of geographically isolated civilisations (apparently) changed their > calendars at the same time. The Babylonians and similar were extremely well > aware of sun and star and (some) planet movement. > > Re Stonehenge - it still works they tell me (although when I saw it recently > it just seemed to sit there) Well if it didn't just sit there it wouldn't work! :-) (Apparently someone did make a wrist-sundial - it had a compass built in so you could orient it properly when you wanted to know the time :-) >- which strongly suggests equal year lengths then and now. Indeed, which rather clobbers the physical-change theory - Stonehenge is reckoned to be 5,000 years old, well before the 1400BC that you say the year length may have changed... Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England (site of the Romans' third largest city in Britain, Verulamium). -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics