• wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Why not just do 2025×365.2425 + 186?

    Also note: the Gregorian calendar was not in use yet at the start of this, so that might throw off all your calculations

    • VonReposti@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I wanted to show the full calculation, but that one works too.

      And yes, you could do some more math to account for the 10 day drift the Julian calendar introduced but historians mostly use the proleptic Gregorian calendar which removes this for ease of use to better count orbits. If you want the actual sunrises since 1/1/0001 it should be enough to just add back 10 days.

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Wait so you’re telling me 2000 was not a leap year? But 2200 will be?

        I was too young to really pay attention that year.

        That’s interesting about the proleptic calendar and stuff.

        • VonReposti@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          2000 is divisible by 400 so it is a leap year. It goes “divisible by 4” is a leap year, “divisible by 100” not a leap year, “divisible by 400” the exception to the exception so this is a leap year too.