Talk:Great Year

message: I might suggest the addition of an explanation of the use of the symbol ".  Thinking on it more, I'm expect it means arcseconds, though I'm not positive.  I'm sure it's meaningful to an astronomer or astrologer, but to the average public, it might be thought of as "inches".  I might suggest giving a definition of the symbol before using it extensively.  In addition, if it does mean a portion of an angle, giving that as a measure of speed is likely to be inaccurate.  Speed should be measured over a period of time.  Thanks.  --Sean 07:58, 13 Aug 2006
: I added a footnote/endnote regarding the units of measure. I also changed the notation to arcseconds to make it less ambigous and more internationally recognized. The quotation mark that was there is a common way to indiccate a quotation, but is an incorrect way to designate  an arcsecond. Thanks for pointing thiis out --Cplot 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  arcsecond units 

message: The following paragraph should be removed unless a reference is provided.  
Most of these ancient cultures believed that during the course of one Great Year civilization will rise for about 12,000 years, culminating in a Golden Age, then fall for 12,000 years, culminating in a Dark Age, before rising again. Thus a Great Year is thought to be a cyclical measurement of time with periods of waxing and waning light and darkness similar to the earth's daily and yearly periods of time
Even if a reference is provided at a minimum it its beginning should be changed to:
Some of these ancient cultures 
but to be preicise an example of one or more cultures should be provided.
I intend to remove this paragraph in due course unless some one has an objection
Terry MacKinnell (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rise and Fall of Civilisations over approx. 26,000 years cycle

message: There does not appear to be any reason why this topic of the Great year should not be merged with Astrological Ages.
Terry MacKinnell (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this topic be merges with Astrological Ages?

message: I have added the inadequate references to this topic as there a numerous facts and details provided but only one reference
Terry MacKinnell (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadequate References 

message: Someone asked in 2006 how Plato is involved in all of this.
The reason the "Great Year" is also called the "Platonic Year" is that Plato alludes to it in some of his dialogues, for example Republic 546b Timaeus 39d.
Pollinosisss (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato and the great year 

message: Re: "This page is pure BALONEY The Precessional cycle has nothing to do with the Great Year, which according to Heraclitus is 10,800 years. Each time this is pointed out, it gets erased by the astrologists who are bent on imposing their definition of the Great Year on the world.".  
There are a number of Great Years including Heraclitus and the Precessional cycle.  Why not pre-discuss the appropriate edits to include the 'other' Great Years.  Terry Macro (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Year, which according to Heraclitus is 10,800 years

message: Does anyone know the origin of the term Great Year?  Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 1st century CE) writes of a μεγας νιαυτος πληρουτοι of 600 years.   Excuse my lack of declension, this seems to translate as a 'Great Full Year'. Whiston and the Loeb translator both give this as 'Great Year' Is there anything earlier?
Despite the NASA definition I think it misleading to equate it with the Platonic Year, the concept may be related to and derived from a cycle specified by Plato but cannot be identical with.
I am afraid the opening is now a bit of a mess, but it's better to be an obvious mess than misleading. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term 'Great Year' 

message: The long quotation from Finch as regards the true north and magnetic north poles should not be left without an explanation to the effect that he has not a clue what he is jabbering about for the magnetic north pole. The magnetic poles have zero bearing on the issue of precession, though I grant they *may* (or may not) have some contribution to the wobble of Earth. Yes, there are two poles involved in this matter, but they are the true poles of the terrestrial sphere in its rotation and the celestial pole of the ecliptic which has to do with Earth's orbit about the Sun and the tilt of the plane of our orbit. The magnetic poles do not enter into it, at all. Indeed the magnetic north moves independently of Earth's celestial mechanics and has more to do with the behaviour of liquid metal under pressure, the layering of elements in Earth's mantle, the composition of the core, the distribution of land and ocean on our crust (the Arctic as a sea surrounded by land, counterweighted by the Antarctic as a land mass weighed down by ice and surrounded by ocean) and other such matters. The magnetic poles have indeed drifted many hundreds of kilometres over the past two centuries, at a much faster pace than Earth's other poles. As our ice caps melt and shrink, the pace and direction of this drift may accelerate, but that is another topic.BeeTea (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to the talk page to mention the same thing.  I'm no expert, though I believe the Egyptians weren't even aware of magnetic north.  Besides, as you mention, it contradicts the previous statements about the ecliptic north.  Looks like we saw this on the same day a great year apart. :) metric (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have deleted the quote along with the rest of the additions by user jhpalmerjp in the same edit from July 2013. metric (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic Poles 

message: Re the edit change to: The term Great Year has a variety of related meanings. It is defined by NASA as "The period of one complete cycle of the equinoxes around the ecliptic, about 25,800 years or precisely 25,772 years
:My understanding is that it is not constant, and that the length of the Great Year is consistently decreasing as the Moon slowly increases its orbital distance from the Earth?  So while it may be 25,772 years at this point of time, it will be different over the coming centuries? Terry Macro (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Great Year 

message: I am now removing this tag as it has been in place since 2014 and the article is in a much better state with many reliable citations.Lumos3 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy tag