On Feb 25, 1:30 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 12:27 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 5:45 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 5:29 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > > > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes: > > > > > > But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. > > > > > > Which is why astronomers don't use BCE dates. > > > > > "Which is why"? What astronomically-significant date more than 2010 > > > > years in the past did you have in mind for which an error of one year > > > > would be considered significant by astronomers? Other, I guess than > > > > recorded astronomical observations and predictions by people back > > > > then, but I'd expect them to use "BC" when talking about them. What > > > > do they used when such precision is required? > > > > It's not uncommon to make tables of historic astronomical events. > > > They might be used purely for statistical analysis, or they may be > > > helpful for trying to determine "what's the comet-shaped thing carved > > > in the sky on this obelisk" or whatever. > > > Or, "What is the absolute date of the eclipse meticulously recorded > > and described in this astronomical cuneiform tablet?" > > Absolutely. There are a whole host of reasons to care about > astronomical dates, even ranging down to simple curiosity about when > things happened.-
(The notion that the inquiry was limited to "comet-shaped thing carved in the sky" is a bit naive -- Bayeux Tapestry level.)
