Monday 17th of June 2024

time of the day.....

The testimony of the Church for 2000 years alone is enough to prove

1) that the Byzantine revisionism artfully concocted in the article "How Fake Is Church History, The Gregorian Coup and the Birthright Theft" From 2020 turns out to be more contrived than proven by the facts of a “revised” history – which we would like to see it backed up more, beyond its speculative accusations of fashionable revisionist falsifications; and

2) that the responsibility for the great schism of 1054 does not ultimately rest with Latin Catholicism – whose foundation, as attested by both the Eastern and Western Tradition of the one Church of Christ, is beautiful and well Petrine.


by Sebastien Renault

Essay taken from the book In Time and Out of Time: A Critique of Our Times »


It should be noted at the outset that the text we are about to read does not intend to constitute a specific response to the work of Laurent Guyénot and recentist theses, but indeed to a certain Philo-Byzantine revisionism based on a theology and a vision incomplete calendar. The pretext of the aforementioned 2020 article allows us to reintroduce this controversy, to open it to a more fundamental reflection on the function of the Church which, in order to clarify and better serve its metaphysical and religious ends, knows also shed light on issues and matters within the reach of knowledge of the physical data of the world (contrary to what many, out of ignorance, think a priori).

The treatment of recentist theses, let us point this out, would require an analysis entirely devoted to them. Without being able to do so here, it nevertheless seems useful to us to warn against the pitfalls, the presumptions, and even sometimes the counterfactual obstinacy that the recentist intoxication can unfortunately inspire in those who devote themselves to it on the pretext of "pure and hard" research. of the truth... It's like skepticism, rightly methodical at first, then often pushed to absolutist excess (and consequently to the point of fatal contradiction2), like a filter that has become deficient because it clogs up and ends up letting nothing through, not even the truth…

Without therefore dwelling specifically on a critical analysis of the aforementioned article3, we will recall here some elements of history and astronomy, which alone are sufficient to support the plea of ​​the Gregorian enterprise of the sixteenth century in the face of the depreciations of a regrettable contemporary Byzantine “wokism”. We take this opportunity to condemn loud and clear the "wokism" which, by manipulating language and shaping the "narrative" through the prism of identity politics, distorts or ignores objective truth (biological and historical) for the benefit criteria, imaginations and subjective experiences. The resulting idolatry of identity which wants to impose itself in the name of the needs of such and such misguided revisionist pursuits – we do not, however, discredit all revisionist efforts – harms knowledge and hinders the understanding of reality. .

Story Elements: Prevalence of Accuracy

Let's go back a bit to the factual history of this disparity in the method of determining the date of Easter, the so-called Eastern “Orthodox” Church applying the Byzantine calendar, the Catholic Church applying the Gregorian calendar. The latter is today the most widely used throughout the world. It was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 as a reform of the Julian calendar, which had some inaccuracies in calculating the length of a year. The primary motivation for the Gregorian calendar was, let us recall, to ensure that the date of Easter remained close to the vernal equinox, as had been specified by the Council of Nicaea in 325. One of the main demonstrations – to which we will return later by examining the motivations and strictly scientific foundations of the Gregorian calendar reform – is in fact based on the observation of the equinoxes. According to the Julian calendar, the equinoxes were estimated to occur on March 21 and September 21 each year. However, over time it became apparent that the equinoxes actually occurred a bit earlier, as the Julian year was slightly longer than the solar year. Gregorian astronomers4 demonstrated, using proven observations and calculations, that the equinoxes were about ten days apart and that this difference naturally caused complications in the calculation for determining the date of Easter5. The Gregorian calendar therefore made several adjustments to the Julian calendar, introducing a stricter rule for leap years. By foreseeing in certain cases the jump of a leap year, the new system made it possible to realign the calendar on the solar year and thereby even to eliminate the divergences which affected the Julian calendar. Such corrections have thus made it possible to reduce the difference between the calendar year and the actual duration of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. One of the main arguments in favor of the Gregorian calendar, which would be that put forward by the renowned German Jesuit mathematician and astronomer, Christophorus Clavius ​​(1538 – 1612), therefore stems from its precision in the prediction of astronomical phenomena, such as than the date of the equinoxes and solstices, the system derived from the observational data supporting the new universal calendar more closely matching the actual motions of the Sun and stars.

Profile of Byzantine revisionism

Revisionism can take on many facets, ranging from the questioning of founding narratives (questioning indisputably justified in certain cases), to outright denial, or even to a more subtle distortion of historical events whose factuality is already amply established. The Byzantine revisionists are particularly experienced in the “art” of using or manipulating in a selective manner this or that historical component to support their arguments, instead of engaging in a rigorous and objective analysis of the sources. This is especially the case when it comes to openly attacking the history and doctrines of the Catholic and Roman Church, the fantasized object of the ignorant hatred and syncretistic delusions of its many enemies. and detractors. By concentrating on the black myths conveyed at will against the "Roman Church", against the papacy and against the historiographical veracity of its testimony, universal throughout the ages, Byzantine revisionism grants itself the imaginary right to think sheltered from the wanderings of its own interpretation of history, not always very much in tune with the claims of a religious system professing "orthodoxy".

Unsurprisingly, contemporary Byzantine-inspired revisionists posit the purified and purifying veracity of their version of history to justify their hostility to Rome and its alleged "falsification of history." In fact, they are in line with the first Byzantine revisionists who had already adopted a particularly venomous attitude of defiance towards the Catholic Church and the Roman pontiff, considering them an active and lasting threat to the sovereignty of the Byzantine Empire.

Byzantine revisionism is distinguished by a particularly pronounced anti-Catholic leaning (reading the aforementioned article brings this out quite clearly). Many revisionists of this persuasion willingly make themselves the allies of Protestantism's favorite denunciations of the Catholic Church, which they consider to be an institution tainted with multifaceted corruptions and far removed from the "true teachings" of the primitive Church (including "the orthodoxy” would be the faithful continuation). The main foundations of this Byzantine revisionism include, without dwelling here in too many details, the following elements:

  1. Postulation of a glorified version of the Byzantine Empire, presented as a supreme and eternal state, as a flourishing civilization that has largely contributed to the development of European culture. This revisionist prejudice is based on the fantasized conviction of the superiority of the civilization of the Eastern Roman Empire over that of its Western counterpart.
  2. Rewriting of the history of the Byzantine Empire, the revisionists having sought to erase the errors and the weaknesses of the past, in particular those which could have harmed the dynasty in place. They also sought to highlight the successes of the Empire, especially those of the Macedonian dynasty.
  3. Rejection of the doctrine of papal primacy, holding that the bishop of Rome occupies a privileged and unique position of authority as the visible head of the universal Church. The Byzantine revisionists allege that this notion of the papacy as a universal jurisdiction is only the fruit of a later development (it would not have appeared until the Middle Ages) and that it derogates from the conception that the primitive Church was made of ecclesiastical authority and of the ministry of Peter established in Rome.
  4. By contrast, the Byzantine revisionists claim that it is the Patriarchate of Constantinople that holds the true heritage of apostolic tradition and primacy over the Western Church.
  5. Rejection of the doctrine, yet oh so biblical, of Purgatory (2 M 12, 45-46; Mt 5, 25-26; 1 Cor 3, 13-15; Heb 12, 23). The Byzantine revisionists indeed believe that the latter represents an “innovation” that is not part of the original deposit of faith.
  6. Rejection of the concept of "Greek schism": Byzantine revisionists argue that the separation of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church does not constitute a schism, but rather results from the theological and cultural differences between the two Churches.
  7. Justification of the doctrinal differences between the two institutions, by presenting the Orthodox Church as being the “true Christian Church”; and by seeking to minimize the importance of Rome and the pope in the history of the Church.
  8. Rejection of filioque, seen by Byzantine revisionists as a foreign addition (rather than a dogmatic precision) to the Nicene-Constantinople symbol through the Western Church. These same revisionists still maintain that the added mention of this " and of the Son constitutes an illegitimate alteration of the original text of the symbol and therefore a violation of the "Eastern Faith" (ratified by the Chalcedonian Churches).
  9. Biased exaggeration and criticism of the role played by the Roman Church in the fall of the Byzantine Empire (exonerated of any responsibility for internal corruption): Byzantine revisionists argue that the Latin Church actively contributed to the decline and fall of the Byzantine Empire, especially during the Fourth Crusade of 1204, during the sacking of its capital, Constantinople.
  10. Denunciation of the Crusades, which the Byzantine revisionists consider an aggressive and unjustified attempt by the "Western Church" to impose its authority on the Eastern Christian world.
  11. Going beyond traditional hagiographical narratives (whose content Catholic historians would have more or less “fabricated” in an effort of narrative control through edifying but “inaccurate” and “biased” stories); and valorization of Byzantine events and characters overlooked or devalued by Westernist historiography.
  12. Criticism of the anti-Byzantine Westernism embodied primarily by the Catholic Church (at least in its pre-Vatican II version, allegedly closed to "traditions", "customs" and "Oriental spirituality "); and that the empire of the forces of globalism would perpetuate today – since, in this way of thinking, it is impossible to decry globalism without incriminating the Catholic Church (as its adversaries conceive it, who only know how to identify it with its modernist counterfeit, covidizing and dedicated to the ecolo-idolatrous cult of Gaia, in concert with the other instances of this system of global governance inseparable from the merchant kingdom of Mammon).
  13. Emphasis on continuity between the Byzantine Empire and modern Greece: Byzantine revisionists consider modern Greece to represent the legitimate successor to the Byzantine Empire; and that the cultural and historical legacy of the latter continues to influence modern Greek identity.
The "Wokist" Inclination of Byzantine Revisionism

Following the reform of the Gregorian calendar, most Western countries adopted the new calendar system. But the "Orthodox" Greeks rejected what they considered to be an arbitrary papal innovation - the main problem of Greek "Orthodoxy" being its root-false relationship with the authority of the successor of Rock. Some countries therefore, under Eastern “Orthodox” influence, resisted the change and continued to use the Julian calendar (introduced by Julius Caesar in 45 BC), shifted thirteen days from the solar year. This delay in the adoption of the Gregorian calendar is put forward by some as a well-founded "Byzantine revisionism", a way of rejecting a reform introduced by the Latin-Western Christian world of "papist" obedience and of affirming the independence of the so-called "Orthodox" Eastern Church, boasting of a primacy and an authenticity that theological facts and history actually contradict (we will come back to this in an essay dealing with the quarrel of filioque, in a later chapter). It should be noted, however, that the decision to stick to the Julian calendar was not only a response to religious or cultural considerations, but also to practical and political considerations.

What is now called "Byzantine revisionism" therefore designates the tendency of historians and theologians of Byzantine persuasion to rewrite history in such a way as to serve the historical and theological interests of the Byzantine Empire and of the so-called Church. "Orthodox". This revisionism began to manifest itself as early as the 1453th century, during the reign of Emperor Basil I, at a time of hostilities and power struggles between the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. As a reminder, the Byzantine Empire, also known as the Eastern Roman Empire, existed from the XNUMXth century until the fall of Constantinople in XNUMX. The historical facts of its origin therefore force us to temper imaginations and Orientalist claims supposed to confer the indelible seal of “authentic Christian antiquity” advocated by the anti-Catholic and anti-Roman Byzantine reading.

Byzantine revisionism consists, in truth, of a reinterpretation of the history and heritage of the Byzantine Empire, in accordance with the anti-Catholic state of mind that prevails both among a large number of Western historians called " progressives” and among the so-called “orthodox” schismatics (a curious alliance). It involves the re-examination of historical documents, sources and accounts relating to this empire with the aim of reassessing its meaning and questioning established (understand "Western") interpretations of the influence of the Byzantine Empire on the European civilization as a whole, according to the logic of a kind of "wokist" theological movement centered on an imagined oriental primacy and in conformity with the "orthodox" vision of the world of Greek persuasion. Besides the controversy of calendars, Byzantine revisionism therefore encompasses various aspects, including political history, military exploits, religious facts, cultural contributions and social structures that characterized the Byzantine Empire. It is clear that the hour of revisionism today – at least of certain forms of revisionism, including the one that interests us specifically here – adapts quite well to the ambient “wokism”, its imaginations and its pseudo-intellectual pretensions which, sooner or later, are inexorably judged and slain by reality.

Many opinions are forged these days in the shadow of an anti-Latinism that is as visceral as it is imprudent and far too uneducated. But such a position does not magically immunize the Byzantine tradition itself against the falsification and fabrication that the second part of the aforementioned article sees everywhere in the history and documents of Latinized Christianity, from its hypothesis of 'after which “the history of the first millennium is heavily distorted. [“the history of the first millennium undergoes a heavy distortion”]

Scientific defense of the Gregorian calendar

Let us now return to the initial calendar controversy, recalling that the corrective adoption of the calendar according to the Gregorian reform does not invalidate the scriptural tradition of the Apostles (according to an unfounded Byzantine accusation). The Greek schismatics are inclined to amplify the supposed battle between the Alexandro-Roman scientific heritage, which they revere, against that, which they despise, of the later Roman astronomers (of XNUMXth century Catholic Italy) – particularly Christophorus Clavius . However, here too, the factual quality of their anti-Gregorian arguments takes a serious blow in the wing, if we want to do justice to the work of the ecclesiastical scholar6, which we will briefly recall and explain here.

The Roman calendar was based on a lunar cycle of roughly 29,5 days, which resulted in a year shorter than the solar year, by a differential of about eleven days. The months and seasons were therefore shifted over time. Caesar will solicit the services of the Greek astronomer of Ptolemaic Egypt, Sosigenes of Alexandria, in order to remedy this problem of progressive misalignment. Sosigenes, assisted by other Alexandrian and Roman astronomers and mathematicians, will therefore undertake the development of what will become, in the 1st century BC, the Julian calendar. To determine the duration of the solar year, Sosigenes and his colleagues will first study the positioning and movement of the Sun, to calculate in a simple way the time necessary for its return to the same position. Their observations will not fail either to take into account the movement of the precession of the equinoxes (we will return to the nature and the dynamic importance of the movement of precession). It is from these observations that they will approach the duration of the solar year to establish it at approximately 365,25 days.

Several centuries later, in his " Novi calendarii romani apologia Clavius ​​will provide many detailed calculations intended to support the accuracy of the new Gregorian calendar. One of the key issues he comes to emphasize, by contrast, is the problem posed by the Julian calendar, with a leap year occurring, without exception, every four years. Result, despite the efforts and the limiting effects of the modifications made by Sosigenes of Alexandria and his colleagues under Caesar: a progressive desynchronization of the calendar with respect to the solar year, with a difference of approximately 11 minutes and 14 seconds per year! Over time, this discrepancy inevitably accumulates, giving rise to a sufficiently substantial deviation to affect the calculations relating to the determination of the calendar and the smooth social running of the events relating thereto, starting with the celebration of holidays. nuns.

Some demonstrations drawn from geometry and observation

To argue for the introduction of this new calendar, the seasoned Jesuit astronomer provided several notable scientific demonstrations. It will start by calculating the length of time it takes Earth to orbit the Sun relative to the spring equinox.7, distinguishing calendar year (shorter) and “equinoctial” or “tropical” year (longer), by proceeding on the basis of the following relationship:

T = 365,2425 + 0,0003x - 0,00000015x2, (1)

T denoting the duration of the so-called equinoctial/tropical year in days and x the number of years elapsed since a fixed point in time (Clavius ​​taking the year 1600 as the fixed point of choice).

First taking up the observations of the ancient astronomers Hipparchus (190 – 120 BC) and Ptolemy (100 – 170), he will finally determine, by means of (1), the length of the equinoctial/tropical year in the year 1600 as being exactly 365,2422 days – or 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes and 16 seconds.8

Clavius ​​will then rely on this precise value to determine the dates of the equinoxes and solstices. His skillful and shrewd geometric strategy will be to use the fact that the equinoxes occur when the Earth is at a point in its orbit where the plane of the equator lies in a ratio exactly perpendicular to the line connecting the Earth and the Sun ; while the solstices occur when the Earth is at a point in its orbit where the plane of the equator lies in a ratio exactly parallel to the line connecting the Earth and the Sun.

The average length of the calendar year, subject to the leap correction, is therefore easily calculated as follows:

(3 × 365 + 366) /4 = 365,25 days. (2)

Hence our quadriform calendar set of three calendar years lasting 365 days and a quadrennial lasting 366 days.

The demonstration will also make it possible to verify that the equinoxes advanced by the approximately 11 minutes per year mentioned above, a phase shift that fits exactly with the inaccuracies resulting from the Julian calendar. The Jesuit scholar will further demonstrate the relevance of a reform of the calendar by comparing the discrepancies in the dates of the spring equinox occurring in different cities, with all the unfortunate consequences that such discrepancies could only engender with regard to the need to fix precise date of Easter in Christianity. He will therefore become the persistent and penetrating apostle of the need to move to a universal calendar in order to overcome such problems, the resolution of which would require rigorous scientific work alone capable of guaranteeing the consistency of the calculation of the date of the most important religious feast of the liturgical year, that of the Resurrection!

Starting from the foundation of a good theory confronting observation, Clavius ​​will use sufficiently precise astronomical instruments – such as quadrants and gnomons – allowing him to observe the exact moment when the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the spring and autumn equinoxes. He will thus have been able to determine the duration of the tropical year and the precise moment of the equinoxes, essential data for a durably precise calendar.

It will also calculate the difference between the mean solar day and the apparent solar day. The apparent solar day is the time it takes for the Sun to return to the same position in the sky, as observed from Earth. The mean solar day is the average length of a day over a long period. Clavius ​​will also use the mean tropical year and the solar equation to calculate the times of the equinoxes and solstices as follows:

  • Vernal Equinox (the Sun is directly above the equator and day and night are the same length): March 21 + (23h 30m) × (0,0004 + 0,04167 × n), Or n denotes the number of years since the starting point of the Julian period (set at January 1, 4713 BC, according to the Scaliger cycle9).
  • Summer solstice (the longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere): June 21 + (23h 30m) × (0,0004 + 0,04167 × n), Or n denotes the number of years since the beginning of the Julian period.
  • Autumn Equinox: September 21 + (23h 30m) × (0,0004 + 0,04167 × n), Or n denotes the number of years since the beginning of the Julian period.
  • Winter solstice (the shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere): December 21 + (23h 30m) × (0,0004 + 0,04167 × n), Or n denotes the number of years since the beginning of the Julian period.

The vernal equinox occurs when the Sun is at the intersection of the ecliptic plane (the one formed by the Earth's orbit around the Sun) and the celestial equator; the autumnal equinox occurs when the Sun is at the opposite intersection. The summer solstice occurs when the Sun reaches its highest point in the sky; the winter solstice when the Sun reaches its lowest point in the sky. We owe to Clavius, by means of his calculations of the mean motion of the Sun and of what is called the equation of time10, the precise determination of the dates and times of these crucial astronomical events, without which it is very difficult to make our calendar processes correspond to the rhythm of the seasons in the long term, as evidenced by the pre-Gregorian deviations.

Brief reminders on the precession movement

The precession equation of a rotating object describes the movement of the direction of the axis of rotation of a body in revolution around a fixed point. It can be derived from the equations of motion of a rotating rigid object and expressed as follows:

dΩ/dt = (τz/Iz) ∙ sin(θ), (3)

where dΩ/dt denotes the time derivative of the angular velocity Ω of the object (Ω ≡ dθ/dt); Or τz denotes the moment of force exerted around the axis of rotation of the z ; Or Iz denotes the moment of inertia of the object around this same axis of the z ; and where θ finally denotes the angle formed between this same axis of z and the direction of the extrinsically applied force.

This equation shows that the precession rate of a rotating object is 1) proportional to both the external force and the distance it is applied from the axis of rotation; and 2) that it is inversely proportional to the moment of inertia of the object exerted around the axis of rotation. Precession therefore constitutes the movement of gyration of the axis of rotation itself and not that of the object around its axis of rotation.

We can simplify (1) as follows:

dL/dt = τ, (4)

where L (≡ I ∙ ω) denotes the angular momentum of an object; t the given time (the time derivative of this function is therefore denoted dL/dt); And τ the moment of force acting on this unspecified object. This relationship simply highlights the general fact that the angular momentum of a rotating object changes in response to an external moment of force. It is therefore the force of gravity acting on the center of mass that produces the moment of force τ in the direction perpendicular to the angular momentum L of the object. The top of this one, while changing direction, undergoes a precession with respect to the axis of the z, without the magnitude of the angular momentum L is not itself disturbed. The effective change in the magnitude of L arises from the application, in itself extrinsic, of a moment of force τ.

In the particular case of the Earth's precession, the precession equations will become more complex as they involve more effects, such as Chandler's precession, nutation and the precession of the equinoxes (already partially taken into account by Alexandro-Roman astronomers in the 1st century BC; and, of course, by Clauvius in the XNUMXth century, taking them into full account), the disturbances J2 (of second zonal harmonic) of the gravitational potential of the Earth… These precession effects are mainly induced by the gravitational influence of the Sun and the Moon on the rotation of the Earth.

The precession of the axis of rotation of the Earth

The precession of the axis of rotation of the Earth consists of a cyclic displacement of this axis around the normal to the plane of the ecliptic, movement of a gyratory nature resulting from the gravitational attraction, therefore from the moment of force of the Sun and from the Moon on the Earth's equatorial bulge – the effect of centrifugal force due to the rotation of the Earth and the uneven distribution of its mass are therefore also involved. Knowing how to take it into account, as astronomers have done with varying degrees of precision since antiquity, testifies to the astonishing insight and ingenuity of man in matters of celestial observation. To tell the truth, contrary to the speciesist lucubrations increasingly put forward in these times of false woko-egalitarian "awakening", here is something which clearly distinguishes humanity from exclusively animal species, permanently riveted on an instinctual horizontal perspective confining them to the laws of the world of instinct, in this intrinsically foreign to reasoning and contemplation bearing on the movements of the heavens, as well as to the intricate elaboration of calendars for primarily religious and metaphysical. Man, this bridge between the visible and the invisible, is definitely a unique being, which thought, calculations, and the worship rendered to God of which the calendars speak to us continue to confirm, with eloquence and intelligible flagrance which rightly condemns the odious deafness of our so bastardized era.

Let's return to the beauty of precessional movements, with that, first, of the axis of rotation of our no less beautiful blue planet performing a complete 360 ​​degree gyration in just under 26 years (000 years). We can account for it as follows:

dψ/dt = - k ∙ sin(ψ) – ε ∙ sin(2ψ) – Δψ(t), (5)

where dψ/dt denotes the variation of the angle ψ (the derivative thereof as a function of time t) which forms between the axis of rotation of the Earth and a fixed direction in space (the fixed stars); k a constant implied by mass and solar distance; ε a constant implied by the mass and the lunar distance; and where Δψ(t) serves as a periodic term accounting for the more subtle effects of other celestial bodies on Earth's precession.

One can give to the mathematical expression of the precession of the axis of rotation of the Earth several useful forms according to the number of parameters which one wants to introduce. Clavius ​​himself will play on several registers of analysis anticipating the future implementation of differential equations allowing the numerical resolution and the precise prediction of the movement of the axis of the Earth in time. Achieving this, as he already did in his time without the assistance of the finer tools of differential theory, only better highlights the tremendous outcome of his scientific intervention alongside and in union with the Bishop of Rome, for the benefit of Christianity (then still definable as such) and of civil society in the broad sense.

For example, we can differentially complexify the geometry already correctly envisaged by Clavius ​​to arrive at determining with precision the dates of the equinoxes and the solstices. We introduce the constant K, subsuming the gravitational effects of the Sun and Moon. The derivative of the precession angle of the Earth's rotation axis will therefore vary with time t, the obliquity ε of the ecliptic plane, and the angle θ it forms with the orthogonal plane:

dψ/dt = (K/ε) ∙ [sin(ψ) ∙ cos(ε) – tan(θ) ∙ sin(ε)]. (6)

The precession of the equinoxes

The variation of the position of the equinoxes in time is a direct consequence of the precession of the axis of rotation of the Earth. The Chaldean and Babylonian astronomers, like the great Hipparchus, had already taken note of the effects of this equinoctial precession, inseparable from the axio-terrestrial precession. As mentioned above, when the axis of the Earth precedes it, it traces a circle on the celestial sphere every 26 years. This circle crosses the celestial equator at two points which delimit the spring equinox and the autumn equinox. The precession of the axis of rotation of the Earth therefore causes these two points to move slowly towards the west along the ecliptic plane, which corresponds to the apparent trajectory of the Sun in the sky. The location of the equinoxes on the celestial sphere accordingly seems to shift from year to year relative to the fixed stars. It is these gradual variations of the obliquity of the ecliptic plane which translate what is called the precession of the equinoxes. Quantitatively, therefore, it is a question of arriving at an expression capable of describing the slow oscillating (sinusoidal) periodic movement of the direction of the axis of rotation of the Earth in space and thereby modifying the position of the equinoxes by relation to the stars. NB: by position of the equinoxes we mean, as noted above, the points where the ecliptic plane intersects the celestial equator.

In the form of time derivative, we can therefore translate the precession of the equinoxes as follows:

dP/dt = - k ∙ sin(ε), (7)

k denoting the "precession constant" and ε the obliquity of the ecliptic plane. We will determine k like all the gravitational effects exerted on the Earth by the Sun and the Moon:

k = (3/2) ∙ (R2/G) ∙ J2 ∙ (M/m) ∙ (a/R)2, (8)

where R denotes the mean radius of the Earth's sphere; G the gravitational constant; J2 the second zonal harmonic coefficient of the Earth; M et m the respective masses of the Moon and the Earth; a the semi-major axis of the Moon's orbit around the Earth.

More fundamentally, we can model this equinoctial precession by endeavoring to calculate the precession angle θ itself; or the variation of longitude Δλ of the vernal point:

Δλ = A ∙ cos(2πt/T +B), (9)

where Δλ denotes the point of intersection of the ecliptic plane and the equatorial plane at the vernal equinox; where A and B are variable coefficients determined on the basis of empirical observations; Or t denotes the time elapsed since a chosen reference epoch; and or T denotes the period of precession of the equinoxes.

Concluding remarks

To what extent has Byzantine revisionism accusing Church history (reduced to its Western identity) of spreading “fake news” fallen into the trap of its own defamatory and unwittingly self-reflecting game? The real story, which emerges in the last instance from the intention of its first Author and driving force, will judge it at the time of the irrevocable accounts (no offense to the a priori atheists of the materialist fairy tale today supported at the end of arm by an evolutionary world that is becoming more and more crevard). What the calendar dispute shows is that history has already partly judged it, the measure of the validity and accuracy having motivated and ratified the Gregorian reform attesting, against the usual anticlerical coarseness, of the quality of the scientific office exercised by the Church of Christ, not only in terms of the interpretation of supernatural data beyond natural reason, but also in terms of data within the reach of natural knowledge (here, astronomical data precisely interpreted and justifying a pontifical decision from which we benefit to this day, in science as in religion). You said Galileo case11 ?

Finally, it is interesting to remember that the Byzantine mistrust of the adoption of the Gregorian calendar by the "Western" Church also coincides with the point of view of the early days of Protestantism in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which also saw in it a conspiracy and a "papal perversion" (one more). These actors of the anti-Catholic conspiracy continue and will continue to bark... The salutary Barque of Pierre nevertheless goes its way, unshakeable, even in the midst of the most formidable storms.


source: Between the Pen and the Anvil





the new media......




Megyn Kelly is joined by Dan Bongino, host of The Dan Bongino Show, to talk for the first time about his exit from Fox News, the way the media has changed, how the Fox News' audience is still punishing the network after Tucker Carlson's firing, behind-the-scenes details about working at Fox, the differences between cable news and the new media world, the challenges of interviewing, Dan's disdain for journalists and hatred of the left, Christiane Amanpour's embarrassing comments about journalism and Trump, his love of Gov. Ron DeSantis but why he's supporting Donald Trump in 2024, why Trump's deal-making is more important than his conservative background, the left's hypocrisy on "believe all women," media covering for serious health issues with Democratic Senators John Fetterman and Dianne Feinstein, whether Rep. George Santos should resign, the truth about what the Durham Report shows about the deep state and the FBI, his work as a Secret Service agent for Obama, his major health scare, getting his big break guest hosting for Sean Hannity, living the life he wants now, and more.