[meteorite-list] Boguslavka fall (was...Happy Crab Nebula Day!)

From: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:26:20 -0400
Message-ID: <8CE094FC357199F-1B44-58D8D_at_webmail-d139.sysops.aol.com>

Sterling wrote:

"By 1917, when?revolutionary Russians changed their calendars, it was
13 days."

Hi Sterling,

Very informative post ... Now I have one doubt I'm going to have to
check on.

Boguslavka hexahedrite, (fall, 1916 Oct. 18). I got a beautifully
prepared specimen from Anda, Martin and Stefan, my star example of a
hexahedrite ...

I'd like to clarify on the label the fall date: Julian or 'Gregorian'?
If the date is Old System, the modern fall date in its time zone would
then be 31 October 1916 - a Halloween in some cultures - though still
October 30 (or October 17) in the USA... I'm thinking the it was
probably recalculated to the modern calendar system since it was close
enough to the change of the official calendars on Feb. 1, 1918 or so?
But their is the reference quoted of 1916 ...

"BOGUSLAVKA
Iron IIA-H
Fall, October 18, 1916
Russia, Primorsk region
Two stones weighing 256.8 kg
Photo shows a 1765 g piece
The fall was at 11:45 AM, the sky was clear and weather was warm. The
fall was seen from Vladivostrok to the Han Dao He Tse rail station (475
versts) and accompanied by light and sound phenomena.

The fall occurred 200 cubits south of a Korean village (fan-za), and
location of the fall was shown by a resident of this fan-za, Ma Tomu
Ni. The first fragment fell near a Cossack who happened to be riding
nearby, Ivan Ovchinnikov.

?The meteorite Boguslavka was the first observed fall of an iron
meteorite in the Russian Empire. Based on its main mass it was a huge
fall in comparison with others, and has a beautiful external structure
and fantastic shape. ...

O.O. Baklund, 1916"


ref:
http://www.geokhi.ru/~meteorit/opis/boguslavka-e.html

Maybe the Handbook of Iron Meteorites has more on this?

Kindest wishes
Doug






-----Original Message-----
From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
To: paw at wirelessbeehive.com; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com;
MexicoDoug <mexicodoug at aim.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 5, 2011 2:49 am
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] OT - Happy Crab Nebula Day!


The Calendar-Go-Round!?
?
? Simple answers first: if a source specifies "Julian calendar"?
for the date of an event, it almost certainly means the event's date?
in the Julian calendar system, proposed and enforced by Augustus,?
Julius Caesar's adopted son and first Emperor of Rome.?
?
? By the time Pope Gregory XIII decided the calendarical slide had?
gone far enough, the Julian calendar of 1700 and the astronomical?
calendar were 11 days apart, by the 1800's when Protestant Europe?
adopted the "Gregorian" calendar, it was 12 days off. By 1917, when?
revolutionary Russians changed their calendars, it was 13 days. The?
Julian lags by one day every 143 years (since Year 1 AD).?
?
? But it's messier than that. For example, when does a year begin??
Jan. 1? No, not for most of the past two millennia. Were calendars,?
at a given time, the same in all countries? No.?
?
? The Roman calendar began the year on 1 January, and this remained?
the start of the year after the Julian reform. However, even after
local?
calendars were aligned to the Julian calendar, they started the new
year?
on different dates. The Alexandrian calendar in Egypt started on 29?
August (30 August after an Alexandrian leap year). Several local?
provincial calendars were aligned to start on the birthday of Augustus,?
23 September.?
?
? The indiction caused the Byzantine year, which used the Julian?
calendar, to begin on 1 September; this date is still used in the?
Eastern Orthodox Church for the beginning of the liturgical year.?
When the Julian calendar was adopted in Russia in AD 988 by?
Vladimir I of Kiev, the year was numbered Anno Mundi 6496,?
beginning on 1 March, six months after the start of the Byzantine?
Anno Mundi year with the same number. In 1492 (AM 7000),?
Ivan III, according to church tradition, realigned the start of the?
year to 1 September, so that AM 7000 only lasted for six months?
in Russia, from 1 March to 31 August 1492.?
?
? During the Middle Ages 1 January retained the name New Year's?
Day (or an equivalent name) in all Western European countries?
(affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church), since the medieval?
calendar continued to display the months from January to December?
(in twelve columns containing 28 to 31 days each), just as the?
Romans had. However, most of those countries began their?
numbered year on 25 December (the Nativity of Jesus), 25 March?
(the Incarnation of Jesus), or even Easter, as in France.?
?
? In England before 1752, 1 January was celebrated as the?
New Year festival, but the "year starting 25th March was?
called the Civil or Legal Year, although the phrase Old Style?
was more commonly used." To reduce misunderstandings?
on the date, it was not uncommon in parish registers for a?
new year heading after 24 March for example 1661 had?
another heading at the end of the following December?
indicating "1661/62". This was to explain to the reader?
that the year was 1661 Old Style and 1662 New Style.?
?
? Most Western European countries shifted the first day of?
their numbered year to 1 January while they were still using?
the Julian calendar, before they adopted the Gregorian calendar,?
many during the sixteenth century. The following table shows?
the years in which various countries adopted 1 January as the?
start of the year. Eastern European countries, with populations?
showing allegiance to the Orthodox Church, began the year on?
1 September from about 988.?
?
? Note that as a consequence of change of New Year,?
1 January 1751 to 24 March 1751 are non-existent dates?
in England.?
?
? The Julian calendar was in general use in Europe and Northern?
Africa from the times of the Roman Empire until 1582, when?
Pope Gregory XIII promulgated the Gregorian Calendar.?
Reform was required because too many leap days are added?
with respect to the astronomical seasons on the Julian scheme.?
On average, the astronomical solstices and the equinoxes?
advance by about 11 minutes per year against the Julian year.?
As a result, the calculated date of Easter gradually moved out?
of phase with the moon. While Hipparchus and presumably?
Sosigenes were aware of the discrepancy, although not of its?
correct value, it was evidently felt to be of little importance at?
the time of the Julian reform. However, it accumulated significantly?
over time: the Julian calendar gained a day about every 134 years.?
By 1582, it was ten days out of alignment.?
?
? The Gregorian Calendar was soon adopted by most Catholic?
countries (e.g. Spain, Portugal, Poland, most of Italy). Protestant?
countries followed later, and the countries of Eastern Europe?
even later. In the British Empire (including the American colonies),?
Wednesday 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday?
14 September 1752. For 12 years from 1700 Sweden used a?
modified Julian Calendar, and adopted the Gregorian calendar?
in 1753, but Russia remained on the Julian calendar until 1917,?
after the Russian Revolution (which is thus called the 'October?
Revolution' though it occurred in Gregorian November), while?
Greece continued to use it until 1923. During this time the Julian?
calendar continued to diverge from the Gregorian. In 1700 the?
difference became 11 days; in 1800, 12; and in 1900, 13, where?
it will stay till 2100.?
?
? Although all Eastern Orthodox countries (most of them in Eastern?
or Southeastern Europe) had adopted the Gregorian calendar by?
1927, their national churches had not. A revised Julian calendar?
was proposed during a synod in Constantinople in May 1923,?
consisting of a solar part which was and will be identical to the?
Gregorian calendar until the year 2800, and a lunar part which?
calculated Easter astronomically at Jerusalem. All Orthodox?
churches refused to accept the lunar part, so almost all Orthodox?
churches continue to celebrate Easter according to the Julian?
calendar (the Finnish Orthodox Church uses the Gregorian Easter).?
?
? The solar part of the revised Julian calendar was accepted by?
only some Orthodox churches. Those that did accept it, with?
hope for improved dialogue and negotiations with the Western?
denominations, were the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople,?
the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, the Orthodox Churches?
of Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria (the last in 1963),?
and the Orthodox Church in America (although some OCA parishes?
are permitted to use the Julian calendar). Thus these churches?
celebrate the Nativity on the same day that Western Christians do,?
25 December Gregorian until 2800. The Orthodox Churches of?
Jerusalem, Russia, Macedonia, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and the?
Greek Old Calendarists continue to use the Julian calendar for their?
fixed dates, thus they celebrate the Nativity on 25 December Julian?
(which is 7 January Gregorian until 2100).?
?
? And... Here's a further deeper sample of calendrical complexity.?
?
? Some examples: Should one use local solar time, local mean?
solar time, or standard time? (Prior to the International Meridian?
Conference in 1884, the records of that meeting indicate that only?
four nations followed standard time systems: the UK, the USA?
and Canada - but only just for those two, from the year before.?
The Netherlands did not become part of the international standard?
time system until 1954, for example.?
?
? With the leap year scheme used in the Western calendar the?
time of the vernal equinox ranges over 53 hours within 19-21 March,?
producing a corresponding variation in the solar longitudes at which?
January, or any other month, occurs.?
?
? It has been assumed for a long time that the seasonal year follows?
the spacing between the equinoxes and solstices, the *average* such?
time being the familiar *tropical year* of 365.2422 days when again?
averaged over some dozens of orbits. This assumption seems to be?
wrong. The cycle time of the seasons over the past several centuries?
(since temperature records began) is actually the anomalistic year,?
the time between perihelion passages, which is near 365.2596 days?
again when suitably averaged.?
?
? Because perihelion passage shifts later by about one day every?
58 years on the Western calendar, this would imply that not only?
does 'January' oscillate by 53 hours in the leap year cycle, but also?
the current January is shifted, seasonally-speaking, by more than?
two days compared to 'January' back in 1867.?
?
? Apart from anything else, if one kept a calendar held steady?
against the perihelion position (and hence the seasonal cycle *at?
present* - I would anticipate that this cyclicity is only temporary for?
some centuries until perihelion moves far enough away from the?
winter solstice to lose the resonance) then the 24-hour period?
labelled 'January 31st (Eastern Standard Time)' would in the?
past have been in February.?
?
? This all comes back to the calendar one uses. I have employed the?
term 'Western calendar', It is a fallacy that the calendar used as the?
world-wide standard (with local or religious calendars also employed)?
is the 'Gregorian calendar.' That is an ecclesiastical calendar adopted?
by-and-large only in various Catholic states around 1582-1610,?
persisting since in Italy and Spain. Elsewhere solar calendars have?
been legally adopted (by other countries) in which the same?
(inaccurate) leap year rule as the Gregorian happens to be used.?
The Western calendar derives basically through the major powers:?
Britain's calendar reform of 1751, which was inherited by the?
American colonies and thence by the initial founding states of the?
USA (note that the USA does not have any legal calendar code of its
own,?
the familiar system is just used by common assent there and hence?
elsewhere). It is this which may be termed the 'Western calendar'.?
?
? But that does not make the Western calendar the same as the?
Gregorian.?
?
? There are several very significant differences. The Gregorian is a?
luni-solar calendar in that it provides for a lunar cycle as well as?
a solar sycle. Everyone knows about the leap-year corrections (three?
in 400 are dropped: 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100...) but few know also of?
the lunar jumps: the lunar phase (the phase of the ecclesiastical moon,?
not the real moon) is assumed to follow the Metonic cycle of 19 years?
which is close to 235 lunations, except that over a period of 2500
years?
there are eight single-day jumps interposed. This is done to
'regularize'?
the date of Easter, the main aim of the Gregorian reform. The Gregorian?
is a luni-solar religious calendar, whereas the Western is a solar
civil?
calendar. They are not the same thing.?
?
? That is not to say that Lord Chesterfield's Act of 1751 did not
address?
religious matters. It had to, because Great Britain (as it was then)?
is a religion-based nation. The monarch is the 'Defender of the Faith.'?
In this connection the Act contains several mistakes. For anti-Catholic?
and anti-Semitic reasons the phraseology employed (oft-quoted by people
in?
some form : "Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after
the?
equinox") is nonsensical in itself, and does not lead to the Easter
dates?
actually printed in the Book of Common Prayer, the tables there
following?
the Catholic rules. The statement cited there would imply that Easter?
cannot coincide with either an astronomical full moon or the Passover,?
whereas such coincidences do occur. I might note that the first person?
to have spelled out this nonsense, in about 1850, seems to have been?
Augustus De Morgan, one-time Secretary of the Royal Astronomical
Society.?
?
? On top of that - and this is significant - the Act mentions the
desire to?
keep the solstices and equinox at the same seasonal dates. Leaving
aside?
the recently-recognized fact that the seasons follow the anomalistic
year,?
the implied necessary year-length for the calendar (the Western) as
defined?
by that Act is the *tropical year* of 365.2422 days (on average, etc.).?
The 'Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac' (an official?
publication of the US & UK governments) actually mis-defines the
tropical?
year as the time between vernal equinoxes, and it is NOT. Because of
the?
eccentricity of our orbit four different-length years result from the?
times between vernal and autumnal equinoxes, and winter and summer?
solstices. The Gregorian reform was based upon regularizing Easter and?
thus keeping the date of the vernal equinox near-constant (which it
fails to?
do; note the 53-hour range mentioned earlier), meaning that the year?
counted between those equinoxes is what is needed. This is 365.2424
days?
at present.?
?
? This provides another reason why the Gregorian and Western calendars?
are not the same thing: their target year lengths are different. That?
difference in the fourth decimal place is significant. The mean?
Gregorian year of 365.2425 days is much closer to the Vernal Equinox?
year of 365.2424 days than the tropical year of 365.2422 days, as used?
in the Western calendar. Arguments over whether we need a 'correction'?
every 3200 or 4000 years, begun by astronomer John Herschel in 1828,?
are thus specious (and apart from anything else, tidal drag is?
lengthening the day as defined astronomically as opposed to?
atomically).?
?
? The Catholic Church in the later sixteenth century would?
have produced a 'better' calendar if it had instead used a 33-year?
cycle containing eight leap years, as does the Persian calendar. This?
(i) Makes a year 365.242424... days long on average; (ii) Makes a cycle?
short enough to keep the equinox within a 24-hour range; (iii) Leads to?
a better solution of the lunar phase problem connected with Easter.?
?
? There is more. The Eastern Orthodox Churches have suffered splits?
since in 1923 it was suggested that they alter from the Julian calendar?
to what has been called the 'Revised Julian'. This would have seven?
leap year days dropped from nine centuries, such that the year would?
average to 365.242222... days. This was to provide one-upmanship over?
the Gregorian scheme, but it is based on the mistaken belief that the?
*tropical year* rather than the *vernal equinox year* is the target.?
There are still arguments within those Churches on this topic, mostly?
based on a totally incorrect understanding of the astronomy.?
?
? But this brings me full circle. So far as I am aware the only one of?
the Orthodox Churches to have adopted the Gregorian calendar is that of?
Finland. Thus it is true that the Gregorian calendar is used in?
Finland: within the Orthodox Church, and the Catholic Church. As for?
the rest of the country, that is a different matter. One would need to?
look at the Swedish legislation to see whether they adopted the?
Gregorian calendar, in a legal act dated (I would imagine) 1752, the?
year before the actual reform took place, although I am not sure?
whether Sweden was using the March 25th New Year as was Britain until?
31st December 1751. I would imagine that the Lutherans of Sweden, like?
the Anglicans of Britain, would have written an Act which did not?
mention the Catholic Church/Pope etc., but rather defined a parallel?
solar calendar with some definition for when Easter is to be?
celebrated. Perhaps they made the same silly (and?
religiously-motivated) mistakes as did the British.?
?
? It is very easy to make glib statements like "We use the Gregorian?
calendar" without realizing what is actually involved. For example,?
making January 1st the New Year's Day is often ascribed to the
Gregorian?
reform, but that is a false belief. It was already in use before that.?
Off and on it has been used since at least 153 BC. Similarly we use?
calendar months which have been unaltered since 45 BC, notwithstanding?
claims that Augustus Caesar fiddled with them. Thus the months, as
such,?
are not defined as part of the Gregorian calendar.?
?
? Our year numbers are ordinals, not cardinals. Notwithstanding the?
fact that we count a 'zeroth law of thermodynamics', and a 'zeroth'?
Pharaonic dynasty in Egypt, it makes little sense to have a 'zeroth?
year'. AD 1 is 'the first year of the Lord'. (1 BC is the 'first year?
Before Christ', a seventeenth-century invention by an astronomer, by?
the way.) One may wonder how AD 1 can be 'the first year of the Lord'?
if he was born on December 25th (I am talking here about *traditional*?
dates rather than historically-veracious dates). When Dionysius?
Exiguus was setting up his framework for Easter dates in 525-253 (he?
was not trying to define an era) he correctly recognized that a Jewish?
boy's life is reckoned from his circumcision, not from birth.?
?
? Thus Dionysius equated 1st January (in the year which two centuries?
later became labelled AD 1) as the date of the circumcision, it being
the?
start of the year. (Look into a Church Missal and you will find January?
1st named as the Feast of the Circumcision, and our method of counting?
years from that date is technically referred to as the *Stylo?
Circumcisionis*.) Circumcision occurs on the eighth day counting?
exclusively (see your Bible), putting the traditional Nativity on 25th?
December 1 BC, which was the traditional (but not actual, even then)?
date of the winter solstice festivities. (The early Church had actually?
used January 6th, Epiphany, to avoid the pagan solstice celebrations.)?
Dionysius then counted back the nine month gestation period to the?
traditional (but not actual) vernal equinox of March 25th in 1 BC, and?
he counted years from there as the *Anni ab Incarnatione*. This is the?
year which astronomers call 0 (using cardinals) but is more generally?
termed 1 BC (using ordinals). The fact that March 25th was the?
Incarnation/Annunciation/Lady Day was what led to the British and?
eventually American colonies using that date for New Year, although?
counted FROM THE WRONG YEAR! (AD 1 instead of 1 BC).?
?
? Although the USA now uses the Western calendar, and previous?
to 1752 the Julian was used in the Atlantic colonies, do not imagine?
that no use has ever been made of other systems. When the first?
Catholic missionaries arrived, they imposed the Gregorian calendar.?
?
? Thus when (say) Texas and California joined the USA, although?
their dating systems may have been continuous they did move from the?
Gregorian to the Western calendar. Those parts in the Louisiana?
Purchase were on the Gregorian until they were administered for three?
weeks under the French Revolutionary Calendar in late 1803, before?
Napoleon sold the region to the USA. That's something to note next?
time you eat Lobster Thermidor in New Orleans.?
?
? Until Alaska was sold in 1868 to the USA it was part of the Russian?
Empire, and thus on the Julian calendar. But it is more confusing than?
that. The day of the week there was different to that throughout the?
rest of North America. Although a change from Julian to Western (or?
Gregorian) calendar did not involve a change in the day of week
sequence?
elsewhere, in Alaska it did because that region, in the absence of any?
International Date Line, used both the date and the day of the week?
appropriate for Moscow.?
?
[Deep breath]?
?
? But the date of the supernova is recorded in the Chinese calendar,?
not the Western calendar, as "Zhihe era of the reign, first year, fifth?
lunar month, ji-chou day," says the Wenxian Tongkao of 1280 CE?
and the Xu Zizhi Tongjian Changbian of 1320 CE. But the Song?
Huiyao, a Sung source, gives the date as "Zhihe era, first year,
seventh?
lunar month, 22nd day" when it was observed as a faint yellow?
star that then brightened. The account contains considerable?
observational detail: "...has been seen in daylight, like Venus.?
It had rays stemming in all directions, and its colour was reddish?
white. Altogether visible [in the day] for 23 days." This date would?
shift the supernova date from the Fourth of July into September,?
however.?
?
? Japaenese sources (three) all agree with each other but put it?
one linar month earlier than the Chinese account and are all?
inconsitent with rising times.?
?
? An Islamic oberservation was discovered in 1978 that places?
the supernova in the year 446 of the Islamic calendar, which year?
ran from 12th of April 1054 to the 1st of April 1055 (it's a lunar?
calendar] at the summer low level of the Nile, which fits the July?
date. Claims that certain vague European accounts are of the?
Crab are rejected by most astronomers.?
?
Interpretations of the dates are not straightforward. the 24th of?
April and the 11th of May have also be argued for as the correct?
date by various scholare. The July 4 date was calculated by?
Jan Julius Lodewijk Duyvendak for Jan Oort in 1942.?
?
Sterling K. Webb?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------?
----- Original Message ----- From: "MexicoDoug" <mexicodoug at aim.com>?
To: <paw at wirelessbeehive.com>; <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>?
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 10:15 PM?
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] OT - Happy Crab Nebula Day!?
?
>?
> It ought to be Julian since that was in effect ... or else all the >
references would have to say something about the re-adjustment of the >
date, but that's just an opinion! In astronomy, generally the 1582 >
conversion is respected by astronomers if I recall - I.e., before that
> time events are on the Julian Calendar, and afterwards Gregorian,
even > if they nation of the observation was still on the Julian date;
> usually that doesn't matter and by convention the expression I time I
> believe changes in 1582. Jean Meeus's incredibly useful books, if I >
had them would have an excellent discussion of the subject, but I >
don't have my references with me. Some other list member could look it
> up as Meeus'd be the expert.?
>?
> Best wishes?
> Doug?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
---?
> -----Original Message-----?
> From: Patrick Wiggins <paw at wirelessbeehive.com>?
> To: MeteorList <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>?
> Sent: Mon, Jul 4, 2011 10:12 pm?
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] OT - Happy Crab Nebula Day!?
>?
>?
> I've often wondered and maybe someone here can answer.?
>?
> Since 1054 was long before the 1582 conversion from the Julian to >
Gregorian?
> calendar, is the July 4 date that gets mentioned for the first >
sighting of?
> supernova a Julian date or has it been converted to Gregorian??
>?
> ????
>?
> patrick?
>?
>?
> On 04 Jul 2011, at 10:25, Gary Fujihara wrote:?
>?
>> Cosmic Fireworks: On July 4, 1054, Chinese astronomers observed a?
> "guest star"?
> in the constellation Taurus, the result of a star exploding or going
> Supernova.?
> At mag -6, SN1054 (Supernova of 1054) became about 4 times brighter >
than Venus,?
> was visible in daylight for 23 days, and lasted a period of two
years. > Today we?
> can still see remnants of SN1054 as the Messier Object 1 (M1) Crab >
Nebula.?
>>?
>> http://bigkahuna-meteorites.com/_M1.jpg?
>>?
>> Oh, and for those terrestrially bound in the USA, Happy Fourth of?
> July!?
>>?
>> Gary Fujihara?
>> Big Kahuna Meteorites (IMCA#1693)?
>> 105 Puhili Place, Hilo, Hawai'i 96720?
>> http://bigkahuna-meteorites.com/?
>> http://shop.ebay.com/fujmon/m.html?
>> (808) 640-9161?
?
______________________________________________?
Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html?
Meteorite-list mailing list?
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com?
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list?
Received on Tue 05 Jul 2011 01:26:20 PM PDT