Julian-Gregorian calendar questions

[george kalbouss]

on 4/3/02 11:18 AM, Frank Sciacca at fsciacca at HAMILTON.EDU wrote:

> A seemingly simple question-- is the answer simple?
>
> In 1914 in the Russian Empire (save for Finland, according to
> Baedeker), the Julian calendar was the secular and church calendar in
> use, and "this reckoning is 13 days behind the rest of Europe." [This
> is, of course, still the case in Russian Orthodox Churches that
> function according to "Old-Style" calendars.]  But here is my
> question, were the days of the week the same in the Russian Empire
> and Europe?  If, for example, October 18, 1905 (New Style) fell on a
> Wednesday, was October 5 (Old Style) also a Wednesday?
>
> This leads to the second question:  one of these days the "gap"
> between Julian and Gregorian calendars will increase to 14 days.
> Does anyone know when that will happen (it supposedly increases a day
> every century or so)?  When this does occur, what will happen to
> relative days of week?
> --
> Franklin A. Sciacca
> Assoc. Prof. of Russian
> Chair, Program in Russian Studies
> Hamilton College
> 198 College Hill Road
> Clinton, New York  13323
> 315-859-4773
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
> options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
> http://home.attbi.com/~lists/seelangs/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Julian-Gregorian differences, here's how I understand it:

        1. The earth goes around the sun 365.4 days every rotation.  Under
the Julian calendar, to get the days back on track, a leap year was added
every fourth year with a February 29th.  This would work if the rotation was
365.3333...,  but it isn't.  Thus another reform is needed.

        2. The Gregorian reform attempts to solve the 365.4-365.333 problem.
According to the reform,  century years will not have February 29th, even
though they are leap years and divisible by 4.

        3. But then, the adjustment has been made too much the other way.
Therefore,  in century which are divisible by 400,  the February 29th will
be included even though it is a century.

        4. It ends up that the year 2000 was subjected to three rules: it is
a regular leap year (so it should have a Feb. 29th), it is a century (so it
shouldn't) and it is divisible by 400 (so it should again).  Result?  The
year 2000 came and went, it had a February 29th, and few people noticed that
this was a highly exceptional thing that happens only once every 400 years.

        5.  The 13 days will go to 14 in the year 2100.  Please retain this
e-mail and check it then to see if this really did happen.


George Kalbouss

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                  http://home.attbi.com/~lists/seelangs/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------