Message text written by John Carmichael Although I have has a most interesting morning reading about this, I fear that your questionner is going to be disappointed. One can find (and astonomers have!) very many periodicities associated with the earth/moon/sun system. Many of these are very abstruse and I don't pretend to understand them.
We should remember that at the time the Bible was written knowledge about sun/moon/planet movement whilst quite considerable for its day was not such as to allow 'astronomers of the time' to give a precise estimate for the future - not at least as we know it today. Of course we may believe that the quotations given have derived from God rather than from man and thus be more accurate but the only way we have to check them is to use present day knowledge. We need to remember that at the time we are talking about there was great confusion world wide as to the length of the year - one can read about this (in a low technical manner) - in the excellent book The Calendar recently published. So what sorts of periodicities do we know about? I would refer your enquirer to Jean Meeus's excellent book 'Mathematical Astronomy Morsels'. Which is what I have spent the morning reading! I quote from it below though do not pretend to understand ! I am also a little puzzled at your mention of 2300 YEARS. Your quote from Daniel says ""Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" (Dnl 8 13:14). It thus refers to days and not years. My Bible says 2300 days. Not sure how your enquirer links this to the same number of years.... Despite this confusion I have looked in Meeus and there are cycles of the sun and moon that have a periodicity ranging from a few days to some thousands of days. Viz: "The periodicity of the inclination of the lunar orbit on the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun is 173.3 days The retrograde motion of the lunar nodes has a 'tropical' period of 6798.38 days, that is when referred to the moving equinox (or 6793.48 days sidereal - that is when referred to the stars). This is (I think) the periodicity (18.6 years) with which a cycle of series of occulations of stars by the moon occurs. Half of this is also considered important. One complete revolution of the lunar perigee takes 3231.5 days (tropical) or 3232.61 days (sidereal)" You see the numbers vary according to the measurement reference system. There is the well known Saros period of 18 years and 11 days (6585 days +8 hrs) by which the cycle of solar and lunar eclipses are repeated. There are other eclipse periodicities than the Saros. Meeus lists them: Semester 177 days Hepton 1211 Octon 1388 (one fifth of a metonic ) Tritos 3987 Saros 6585 Metonic 6940 (lunar phases repeated on same dates) Inex 10572 Exeligmos 19756 Tetradia 214038 Heliotrope 652685 Megalosaros 659270 Accuratissima 672441 (approx 1841 years) Horologia 1209012 (approx 3310 years) Conjunctions of the moon with stars are subject to the 18.6 year cycle mentioned above. Meeus also considers occultations both with stars and planets but these don't have a regular periodicity. However I cannot find (in Meeus anyway!) mention of 2300 days or even of 2300 years as a periodicity. There appears to be no 'perfect cycle' mentioned though I suspect that without much difficulty anyone could invent a new cycle where none is currently popular, merely by redefining what you are measuring against what in the sky. I am afraid that I must conclude that whilst the number 2300 may have a religious significance it is reading too much into it to assume it has an astronomical significance as well. >. I also need to know the spring equinox and the monthly conjunctions of the sun and moon. The Almanacs only give the dates of the conjunctions a year at a time and I need the future monthly conjunctions and equinoxes for at least 21 years." Also do you know if the number 1335 has any meaning or significance in astronomy?"< Meeus gives on p 350 a table of the 30 consecutive March equinoxes for 1971 to 2000. You need to be careful about what you mean regarding a 'conjunction'. It isn't a simple grouping of entities. It is when they share the same ecliptical longitude (or the same right ascension if you are working with that sort of conjunction). Thus astronomical data and almanacks may not give your enquirer what he thinks he is getting.... Finally I can also find no mention of 1335 in the book but I am sure that if on tried hard enough one could find it somewhere relating to something! Whetehr it would be wise to regard it as important though is another matter. Hope all this helps - though I suspect it will confuse! An interesting morning though! Patrick
