URTH |
From: Derek Bell <dbell@maths.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: (urth) Re: lunar calendars [Digest urth.v028.n014] Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:15:38 +0100 In message <199908122009.NAA08988@lists1.best.com>, John Bishop writes: >Mantis says: > >> Lunar calendars have thirteen months (13 x 28 = 364). Period. > >Not that I ever read. The islamic calendar still offically >depends on a witness to the new Moon, the Judaic calendar used >to (before it could rely on calculation), and the Classic >world's lunar calendars did also (in particular, the calendars >used to calculate possible eclipse times), though in later >times astronomers calculated a sequence of short and long >months that would be predictable (by reference) but never >more than half a day off the real new Moon. The Islamic calendar is also exclusively *lunar* based with a mean year shorter than the solar year. I once did a back-of-the-envelope calculation about when the two calendars would have the same year simultaneously - sometime after the 30th century, IIRC. >See Abell's astronomy text and various encyclopedias. I once long >ago programed up a calendar maker which used modern data to construct >the 19 and 57 year calendars, but I don't know if the Classic ones >would have had the same distribution of longs and shorts. I'd also suggest _Calendrical Calculations_ by Dershowitz and Reingold - a web site with sample material is at http://emr.cs.uiuc.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/index.shtml Derek Bell *More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/