Re: [Phys-l] Newton's birthday

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

Chuck Britton wrote:

> During Newton's lifetime - his birthday was never anything other than December 25th.
>
> A few decades after his demise, England (and the colonies) went Gregorian and the powers-that-were chose to 'update' his birth date to January 4th.
>
> Let's not KEEP changing it. Let it lie - either the Dec 25th that he knew or the Jan 4th that the politicians updated it to.
>
> At the base of his Westminster statue - the Latin inscription ends with:
> He was born on 25 December 1642, and died on 20 March 1726/7. - Translation from G.L. Smyth, The Monuments and Genii of St. Paul's Cathedral, and of Westminster Abbey (1826), ii, 703-4.[58]
>
> indicating the uncertainty as to when the 'New Year' actually occurred in 1726/7. The 'official' change to Jan 1 wouldn't occur until 1750.
>
> All calendars have a bit of fascinating arbitrariness about them.
>
> At 10:35 AM -0800 1/4/10, Leigh Palmer wrote:
>
> > According to my Julian calendar* December 25, 2009 coincides with 7 January 2010 Gregorian. I think that is the proper anniversary of Isaac Newton's birth. Google's a bit early.
> >
> > Leigh
> >
> > *Intercal, a very nice Macintosh application written by Dennis A. Elliott

I take Chuck's point, and I have now learned that if a birthday is taken to mean the sidereal anniversary of one's natal day, then the day nearest N sidereal years after that day is properly reckoned to be one's Nth birthday. As the Gregorian calendar is more accurately in sync with sidereal years than is the Julian calendar, 4 January is more accurately Newton's birthday than 7 January, as I mistakenly suggested. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Chuck.

This is a Gegenbeispiel that demonstrates the fallacy of the superannuated canine conjecture*.

and Hugh Haskell wrote:

> To get away from the details of the calendar shift, over which the debate will undoubtedly continue endlessly, I would like to recommend a diversion. I encourage everyone to read the charming children's book "Tibaldo and the Hole in the Calendar," by the physicist Abner Shimony (Springer-Verlag-Copernicus Books, 1998). It is written for the 9-15-year age group and shows how one boy dealt with a lost birthday when his twelfth fell among the days that were removed from the calendar when Europe (i.e., the Catholic Church) modernized their calendar in 1582.
>
> There is good science entwined with a delightful story. It is somewhat anachronistic in that Tibaldo and others espouse positions that ran strongly counter to contemporary beliefs, but it is done convincingly and I enjoyed reading it even though I was considerably older than 12 when I read it.

... and that's the second neat new thing I've learned this evening. The application "Intercal" (see <http://intercal.denisandjill.net/>) I mention above displays the October 1582 page with the famous discontinuity. Thanks, Hugh.

Leigh

* "You can't teach an old dog new tricks."