NavList:

   

Reply

Thanks my man, I obviously missed that one too.
Now it all makes some sense.
I appreciate you all moving with us slowpokes too.
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Taylor <ctaylor@XXX.XXX>
To: NAVIGATION-L@XXX.XXX
<NAVIGATION-L@XXX.XXX>
Date: Sunday, May 09, 1999 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Leap year
>On Sun, 9 May 1999, Doug Bamford wrote:
>
>> Why is 1800 not a leap year? I always thought the method of
identification
>> was the year must be divisible by 4.
>> 1800 is in that category, is it not?
>
>Doug,
>
>It takes ~365.24 days for the earth to complete its orbit around the sun.
>If it were exactly 356.25 days, then making every 4th year a leap year
>would make things come out even. That was the premise of the Julian
>calendar, which was used from the time of Julius Caesar to the mid 1700's.
>The problem was that the extra 0.01 day threw things off over time and the
>calendar and the seasons drifted out of alignment. Hence, the Gregorian
>calendar, named for the pope at the time. The rules are now:
>
>1. Years divisible by 4 are leap years, except
>
>2. Years divisible by 100 are NOT leap years, except
>
>3. Years divisible by 400 ARE leap years.
>
>So, 1800 and 1900 were not leap years, but 2000 will be a leap year.
>
>Chuck Taylor
>Everett, WA, USA
>

   

Reply