Add to the other 40

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Add to the other 40

Phil De Rosa

Hello, Amos.

I feel that most religious leaders don’t live in the present, can’t see the changing world around them, and their knowledge and thinking is really locked into a more primitive era. Look at the role of women in religious societies and organizations even today. Until forced to accept change they cling to doctrines that are outside of their domain and then will admit to being wrong only 400 years after the rest of society has moved forward. They try to force society to accept their interpretation of the world around us under penalty of eternal damnation and even the threat of death or promise of rewards in the afterlife. Having said that, I defend their right to have conversations with God, howl at the moon, believe the earth is flat and is the centre of the universe, or whatever, but they have no right to impose their thinking on civil society, this we must resist. I’m surprised that God hadn’t warned Pat Robertson that his plane was going to crash and unfortunately take two lives. But back to the calendar. Because of the power of religions still today I can’t see any reforms to the calendar being adopted in the near future or at least not until more scientific minds prevail and the business community is offered a ‘better mousetrap’, that is a more uniform and perpetual, schematic calendar. We are ahead of our times so we must wait, but maybe that’s where this Calendar List can be of help.

Phil De Rosa – Linking Nature and Commonsense

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add to the other 40

Amos Shapir
The situation is not as dire as it seems.  I live in a country in which
holidays are determined by a
religious calendar, while all business is conducted by a secular calendar,
which happens to be
the Gregorian.  If the Gregorian calendar were to be replaced by something
better, the change
would be accepted here without a wink, because it would not affect the
religious calendar anyway.

This dual-calendar solution could apply anywhere else, but with one
provision: that the weekly
cycle be kept intact and unbroken.  Religious people can live and conduct
their business by a
different calendar; their only inconvenience may be that they'd have to take
some days off a few
times a year.  But they'd find it impossible to cope, if they had to take a
day off every week.
Therefore, the only reform calendars which may ever be accepted, would have
to keep the
week unit, like i.a., the Civil Bonavian and Symmetry454 calendars do.  Such
dating schemes are
already in use in a few places -- have you looked at your car's tires
lately?

>From: Philip DeRosa <[hidden email]>

>Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 20:51:11 -0700
>
>Hello, Amos.
>I feel that most religious leaders don't live in the present, can't see the
>changing world around them, and their knowledge and thinking is really
>locked into a more primitive era. Look at the role of women in religious
>societies and organizations even today. Until forced to accept change they
>cling to doctrines that are outside of their domain and then will admit to
>being wrong only 400 years after the rest of society has moved forward.
>They try to force society to accept their interpretation of the world
>around us under penalty of eternal damnation and even the threat of death
>or promise of rewards in the afterlife. Having said that, I defend their
>right to have conversations with God, howl at the moon, believe the earth
>is flat and is the centre of the universe, or whatever, but they have no
>right to impose their thinking on civil society, this we must resist. I'm
>surprised that God hadn't warned Pat Robertson that his plane was going to
>crash and unfortunately take two lives. But back to the calendar. Because
>of the power of religions still today I can't see any reforms to the
>calendar being adopted in the near future or at least not until more
>scientific minds prevail and the business community is offered a 'better
>mousetrap', that is a more uniform and perpetual, schematic calendar. We
>are ahead of our times so we must wait, but maybe that's where this
>Calendar List can be of help.
>Phil De Rosa - Linking Nature and Commonsense

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add to the other 40

Mikhail Petin
In reply to this post by Phil De Rosa

Dear Amos, Philip and Calendar People,

 

It is known, that mythical 7-day week is absent in a Nature.

     This church invention was imposed to mankind as the

calendar 7-day cycle of time. Unfortunately,

 for the sake of the commercial church  at

using a calendar it is necessary to look in a calendar as

in a curve mirror.

     It is absolutely obvious, that the duration of the 4 church

weeks (i.e. 7+7+7+7 =28 days) does not correspond

the duration of the natural lunar a cycle 

[ i.e. 7+8+7+8 (7) = 30 (29) = 29,530. days]. It

the circumstance detains realization of calendar reform. 

      It is necessary to notice, that a single financial expense for realization of the

calendar reform and an insignificant correction of the church

documents can not serve as a substantiation for the continuation of the population life  

 in disharmony with a Nature.  

http://CalendarPetin-Meton.narod.ru/Bible.htm  

http://CalendarPetin-Meton.narod.ru/index.htm


Best regards
Mikhail Petin
http://CalendarPetin-Meton.narod.ru/Bible.htm  
http://CalendarPetin-Meton.narod.ru/index.htm


> The situation is not as dire as it seems. I live in a country in which
> ho! lidays are determined by a
> religious calendar, while all business is conducted by a secular calendar,
> which happens to be
> the Gregorian. If the Gregorian calendar were to be replaced by something
> better, the change
> would be accepted here without a wink, because it would not affect the
> religious calendar anyway.
>
> This dual-calendar solution could apply anywhere else, but with one
> provision: that the weekly
> cycle be kept intact and unbroken. Religious people can live and conduct
> their business by a
> different calendar; their only inconvenience may be that they'd have to take
> some days off a few
> times a year. But they'd find it impossible to cope, if they had to take a
> day off every week.
> Therefore, the only reform calendars which may ever be accepted, would have
> to keep the
> week unit, like i.a., the Civil Bonavian and Symmetry4! 54 calendars do. Such
> dating schemes are
> already in u se in a few places -- have you looked at your car's tires
> lately?
>
> >From: Philip DeRosa
>
> >Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 20:51:11 -0700
> >
> >Hello, Amos.
> >I feel that most religious leaders don't live in the present, can't see the
> >changing world around them, and their knowledge and thinking is really
> >locked into a more primitive era. Look at the role of women in religious
> >societies and organizations even today. Until forced to accept change they
> >cling to doctrines that are outside of their domain and then will admit to
> >being wrong only 400 years after the rest of society has moved forward.
> >They try to force society to accept their interpretation of the world
> >around us under penalty of eternal damnation and even the threat of death
> >or promise of rewards in the afterlife. Having said that, I defend their > >right to have conversations with God, howl at the moon, believe the earth
> >is flat and is the centre of the universe, or whatever, but they have no
> >right to impose their thinking on civil society, this we must resist. I'm
> >surprised that God hadn't warned Pat Robertson that his plane was going to
> >crash and unfortunately take two lives. But back to the calendar. Because
> >of the power of religions still today I can't see any reforms to the
> >calendar being adopted in the near future or at least not until more
> >scientific minds prevail and the business community is offered a 'better
> >mousetrap', that is a more uniform and perpetual, schematic calendar. We
> >are ahead of our times so we must wait, but maybe that's where this
> >Calendar List can be of help.
> >Phil De Rosa - Linking Nature and Commonsense
>
> ___________________! ______________________________________________
> Express yoursel f instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
In reply to this post by Amos Shapir
Dear Philip, Amos and Other Calendar People

So Amos brings up Leap Week calendars.

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Amos Shapir
Sent: 04 June 2006 15:26
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Add to the other 40


The situation is not as dire as it seems.  I live in a country in which
holidays are determined by a
religious calendar, while all business is conducted by a secular calendar,
which happens to be
the Gregorian.  If the Gregorian calendar were to be replaced by something
better, the change
would be accepted here without a wink, because it would not affect the
religious calendar anyway.

This dual-calendar solution could apply anywhere else, but with one
provision: that the weekly
cycle be kept intact and unbroken.  Religious people can live and conduct
their business by a
different calendar; their only inconvenience may be that they'd have to take
some days off a few
times a year.  But they'd find it impossible to cope, if they had to take a
day off every week.
Therefore, the only reform calendars which may ever be accepted, would have
to keep the
week unit, like i.a., the Civil Bonavian and Symmetry454 calendars do.  Such
dating schemes are
already in use in a few places -- have you looked at your car's tires
lately?

KARL SAYS:
You can find out about various leap week calendar proposals via
http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/lweek1.htm

You can start using any leap week calendar today, because there is no need to change the working week. Today it's

Thursday 4 June 2006 in the Symmetry454 Calendar
Thursday 7 June 2006 in the C&T Calendar
Thursday 19 June 4719 in the Bonavian Civil Calendar
Thursday 26 June 2006 in Colligan's Pax Calendar
Thursday Ten of Diamonds in the Playing Card Calendar

Year 1 of the Bonavian Civil Calendar starts with Julian Day Number 27.

Leap week calendars do have the disadvantage of having the equinoxes and solstices move back and forth against the calendar year over a week or more then a week if the leap year rule is simple.

Karl

08(04(12




>From: Philip DeRosa <[hidden email]>

>Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 20:51:11 -0700
>
>Hello, Amos.
>I feel that most religious leaders don't live in the present, can't see the
>changing world around them, and their knowledge and thinking is really
>locked into a more primitive era. Look at the role of women in religious
>societies and organizations even today. Until forced to accept change they
>cling to doctrines that are outside of their domain and then will admit to
>being wrong only 400 years after the rest of society has moved forward.
>They try to force society to accept their interpretation of the world
>around us under penalty of eternal damnation and even the threat of death
>or promise of rewards in the afterlife. Having said that, I defend their
>right to have conversations with God, howl at the moon, believe the earth
>is flat and is the centre of the universe, or whatever, but they have no
>right to impose their thinking on civil society, this we must resist. I'm
>surprised that God hadn't warned Pat Robertson that his plane was going to
>crash and unfortunately take two lives. But back to the calendar. Because
>of the power of religions still today I can't see any reforms to the
>calendar being adopted in the near future or at least not until more
>scientific minds prevail and the business community is offered a 'better
>mousetrap', that is a more uniform and perpetual, schematic calendar. We
>are ahead of our times so we must wait, but maybe that's where this
>Calendar List can be of help.
>Phil De Rosa - Linking Nature and Commonsense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Amos Shapir
I use a version of the Bonavian calendar which starts one week later, which
makes dates in it closer to the Gregorian (today is the 2nd Thu. in June, or
June 12); it's easier to keep track of birthdays and other anniversaries,
especially since the Bonavian calendar uses the same month names.


>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>

>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 12:47:23 +0100
>
>Dear Philip, Amos and Other Calendar People
>
>So Amos brings up Leap Week calendars.
>
...

>You can start using any leap week calendar today, because there is no need
>to change the working week. Today it's
>
>Thursday 4 June 2006 in the Symmetry454 Calendar
>Thursday 7 June 2006 in the C&T Calendar
>Thursday 19 June 4719 in the Bonavian Civil Calendar
>Thursday 26 June 2006 in Colligan's Pax Calendar
>Thursday Ten of Diamonds in the Playing Card Calendar
>
>Year 1 of the Bonavian Civil Calendar starts with Julian Day Number 27.
>

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
Dear Amos and Calendar

I recall corresponding with Amos about this in September 2004 and only through a quote of a lost web page of Chris Carrier who invented the calendar was I able to obtain the epoch. I quote a note sent to CANDR-L then below.

I've wondered why Chris chose such an early time of year for the epoch. I could be so that
(1) the new year is closer to the solstice or
(2) in choosing year 0 to begin on JDN -337, he overlooked the fact that unlike most years whose number is divisible by 28, year 0 has no leap week, so causing year 1 to begin on JDN 27 rather than JDN 34 as expected.

Possibility (1) is suggested by the fact that JDN 27 is December 21 in the proleptic Gregorian calendar.

I have a table on Bonavian New Years at
http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Bonavian_ny.txt

Karl

08(04(12

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Amos Shapir
Sent: 08 June 2006 13:02
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40


I use a version of the Bonavian calendar which starts one week later, which
makes dates in it closer to the Gregorian (today is the 2nd Thu. in June, or
June 12); it's easier to keep track of birthdays and other anniversaries,
especially since the Bonavian calendar uses the same month names.


>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>

>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 12:47:23 +0100
>
>Dear Philip, Amos and Other Calendar People
>
>So Amos brings up Leap Week calendars.
>
...

>You can start using any leap week calendar today, because there is no need
>to change the working week. Today it's
>
>Thursday 4 June 2006 in the Symmetry454 Calendar
>Thursday 7 June 2006 in the C&T Calendar
>Thursday 19 June 4719 in the Bonavian Civil Calendar
>Thursday 26 June 2006 in Colligan's Pax Calendar
>Thursday Ten of Diamonds in the Playing Card Calendar
>
>Year 1 of the Bonavian Civil Calendar starts with Julian Day Number 27.
>
-------- quoting note of 3 Sept 2004 to end ----------------------
Dear Amos and Calendar People

When corresponding with Amos on 26 April 1999, Amos quoted from a lost website of Chris Carrier who invented the Bonavian calendar:

--- Start Quote ---

The Bonavian Civil Calendar's origin point -- New Year's Day of the year 0 JP
-- was BC 4714 January 29 Sunday, Julian proleptic calendar.  Years are Julian
Years -- which makes AD 1996 = JP 6709 in large part.  Leap year is at the end
of December, in JP years which are 0, 5, 11, 16 and 22 mod 28.  Leap week is
cancelled, however, in years which are 0 mod 896.  The current date, 1996
November 18 Gregorian, is 6709 November 23 in the Bonavian Civil Calendar.

--- End Quote ---

I've calculated that the stated date conversion (of November 23, 6709 for November 18, 1996) is correct for the started epoch (Year 0 JP begins JD -337), but the new years are rather early and presently range from 17 to 24 December Gregorian. The year 6709 itself started on 24 December 1995 (latest in 28 years).

Year 6712 began on 20 December a week earlier than the date given by Amos.

D24  D23  D22  D21  D20  D19  D18  D17
     6693 leap 6694 6695 6696 6697 leap leapweek (1980-1984)
     6698 6699 6700 6701 leap 6702 6703 leapweek (1985-1990)
     6704 6705 leap 6706 6707 6708 leapweek      (1991-1995)
6709 leap 6710 6711 6712 6713 leap 6714 leapweek (1996-2001)
     6715 6716 6717 leap 6718 6719 6720 leapweek (2002-2007)

Karl Palmen


06(14(19

Friday, September 13, 6717 JP - Bonavian
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Amos's Bonavian RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
In reply to this post by Amos Shapir
Dear Amos and Calendar People

I recall finding out that for year 1 beginning on JDN 27, no Bonavian month (since epoch) begins later than the corresponding Gregorian month and some (all of them May) begin on the same day as the corresponding Gregorian month.

So with Amos's Bonavian calendar (year 1 beginning on JDN 34), no Bonavian month (since epoch) begins more than 7 days later than the corresponding Gregorian month.
I haven't yet worked out how much the earliest Bonavian month begins before the corresponding Gregorian month. This amount is not limited unless one specifies an end year for the range to be considered. I expect the earliest month to be January of the last year in the range of consideration whose number has a remainder of 11 when divided by 896.


Karl

08(04(12

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Amos Shapir
Sent: 08 June 2006 13:02
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40


I use a version of the Bonavian calendar which starts one week later, which
makes dates in it closer to the Gregorian (today is the 2nd Thu. in June, or
June 12); it's easier to keep track of birthdays and other anniversaries,
especially since the Bonavian calendar uses the same month names.


>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>

>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 12:47:23 +0100
>
>Dear Philip, Amos and Other Calendar People
>
>So Amos brings up Leap Week calendars.
>
...

>You can start using any leap week calendar today, because there is no need
>to change the working week. Today it's
>
>Thursday 4 June 2006 in the Symmetry454 Calendar
>Thursday 7 June 2006 in the C&T Calendar
>Thursday 19 June 4719 in the Bonavian Civil Calendar
>Thursday 26 June 2006 in Colligan's Pax Calendar
>Thursday Ten of Diamonds in the Playing Card Calendar
>
>Year 1 of the Bonavian Civil Calendar starts with Julian Day Number 27.
>

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Amos Shapir
In reply to this post by Palmen, KEV (Karl)
But the version I use also starts on the JDN -337 epoch!  So it seems one of
us had made a mistake somewhere.  I can send you the code if you can read
Perl.


>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:28:34 +0100
>
>Dear Amos and Calendar
>
>I recall corresponding with Amos about this in September 2004 and only
>through a quote of a lost web page of Chris Carrier who invented the
>calendar was I able to obtain the epoch. I quote a note sent to CANDR-L
>then below.
>
>I've wondered why Chris chose such an early time of year for the epoch. I
>could be so that
>(1) the new year is closer to the solstice or
>(2) in choosing year 0 to begin on JDN -337, he overlooked the fact that
>unlike most years whose number is divisible by 28, year 0 has no leap week,
>so causing year 1 to begin on JDN 27 rather than JDN 34 as expected.
>
>Possibility (1) is suggested by the fact that JDN 27 is December 21 in the
>proleptic Gregorian calendar.
>
>I have a table on Bonavian New Years at
>http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Bonavian_ny.txt
>
>Karl
>
>08(04(12
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
Dear Amos and Calendar People

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Amos Shapir
Sent: 08 June 2006 16:45
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other
40


But the version I use also starts on the JDN -337 epoch!  So it seems one of
us had made a mistake somewhere.  I can send you the code if you can read
Perl.

KARL SAYS: I don't know Perl.
Can Amos give us the algorithm he uses to determine which JDN year Y begins on?

Karl

08(04(12


>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:28:34 +0100
>
>Dear Amos and Calendar
>
>I recall corresponding with Amos about this in September 2004 and only
>through a quote of a lost web page of Chris Carrier who invented the
>calendar was I able to obtain the epoch. I quote a note sent to CANDR-L
>then below.
>
>I've wondered why Chris chose such an early time of year for the epoch. I
>could be so that
>(1) the new year is closer to the solstice or
>(2) in choosing year 0 to begin on JDN -337, he overlooked the fact that
>unlike most years whose number is divisible by 28, year 0 has no leap week,
>so causing year 1 to begin on JDN 27 rather than JDN 34 as expected.
>
>Possibility (1) is suggested by the fact that JDN 27 is December 21 in the
>proleptic Gregorian calendar.
>
>I have a table on Bonavian New Years at
>http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Bonavian_ny.txt
>
>Karl
>
>08(04(12
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
In reply to this post by Amos Shapir
Dear Amos and Calendar People

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Amos Shapir
Sent: 08 June 2006 16:45
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other
40


But the version I use also starts on the JDN -337 epoch!  So it seems one of
us had made a mistake somewhere.  I can send you the code if you can read
Perl.

KARL SAYS: Last night I realised what the bug could be.

I suspect that the Amos's Perl program reckons the number of leap weeks dropped by years divisible by 896 since the start of year 0 up to the start of year Y to be

int( (Y-1)/896 )

This expression incorrect!
However it is correct, if you count from year 1 (or any year from 1 to 896 inclusive) rather than year 0 and Y is positive.

This expression is 0 for Y=0, only because int(x) rounds towards 0 rather than down. If floor(x) were used instead of int(x), Y=0 would yield -1. One needs to add 1 to compensate for this. This gives as a correct expression

floor( (Y-1)/896)) + 1

or

floor( (Y+895)/896 )

The adding of the 1 causes all positive-number years to begin a week earlier (as I have reckoned).

Because they use floor(x) they are both also valid for negative Y, where it is then the negative of the number of weeks to be added to the JDN because of dropped leap weeks.

It is possible that Chris Carrier made the same error in his program for converting the Bonavian Civil calendar. This I'd regard as a variation of (2) in the original note below.
Has anyone got a copy of his BASIC software referred to at the bottom of the web page
http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/bonavian.html ?


In calendrical calculations, I'd advise to always use floor(x) instead of int(x), unless you are sure that x will always be non-negative or have a well thought out reason for using int(x). This also applies to the implicit use of int(x) or floor(x) in the modulo operator.

Karl

08(04(12 till noon


>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:28:34 +0100
>
>Dear Amos and Calendar
>
>I recall corresponding with Amos about this in September 2004 and only
>through a quote of a lost web page of Chris Carrier who invented the
>calendar was I able to obtain the epoch. I quote a note sent to CANDR-L
>then below.
>
>I've wondered why Chris chose such an early time of year for the epoch. I
>could be so that
>(1) the new year is closer to the solstice or
>(2) in choosing year 0 to begin on JDN -337, he overlooked the fact that
>unlike most years whose number is divisible by 28, year 0 has no leap week,
>so causing year 1 to begin on JDN 27 rather than JDN 34 as expected.
>
>Possibility (1) is suggested by the fact that JDN 27 is December 21 in the
>proleptic Gregorian calendar.
>
>I have a table on Bonavian New Years at
>http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Bonavian_ny.txt
>
>Karl
>
>08(04(12
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Vij's approach Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar?RE: Add to the other 40

Brij Bhushan Vij
In reply to this post by Amos Shapir
Karl, Amos & CC:
>I recall corresponding with Amos about this in September 2004 and only
>through a quote of a lost >web page of Chris Carrier who invented the
>calendar was I able to obtain the epoch. I quote a >note sent to CANDR-L
>then below. I've wondered why Chris chose such an early time of year for
>the epoch.
Whatever be the POSITIVE indicator for the choice of Chris Bonavian, my
approach for the development of 128-year cycle (div. by 4) to get leap day &
skip during 128th-year - by simply shifting ONE day from July to February
make the Calendar scheme * simple, scientific & straight forwards* for
acceptance by common man that can modify the current div.4/100/400 scheme to
get Mean Year =365.2421875 d.
Like wise, my developing 7*128=896-yr/159 LWks, as extended to
3*[7*128=896-yr/159 LWks] i.e. 2688-years/477 LWks provide similar result;
or my 834-years/148 LWks have found its merit. During my discussion
(2002-.....) with Calndr-L I attempted to explore that most schemes can
produce closer to desired Mean Year value using SIMPLE (div.6). My
calculations of Era Points have been discussed, as at:
http://www.brijvij.com/eraPts-n-Moons.doc.
It is a co-incidence that Start date for VGRCalendar is 63154.99 (say, 63155
Lunation/Moons) from zero year - removing the confusion between BC/AD years
count.
Regards,
Brij Bhushan Vij
(Thursday, Kali 5107-W08-04)/D-161(Friday, 2006 June 09H10:39(decimal) ET
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
(365th day of Year is World Day)
******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****
"Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"
Contact # 001(201)675-8548


>From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List              
><[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40
>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:44:38 +0300
>
>But the version I use also starts on the JDN -337 epoch!  So it seems one
>of us had made a mistake somewhere.  I can send you the code if you can
>read Perl.
>
>
>>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
>>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:28:34 +0100
>>
>>Dear Amos and Calendar
>>
>>I recall corresponding with Amos about this in September 2004 and only
>>through a quote of a lost web page of Chris Carrier who invented the
>>calendar was I able to obtain the epoch. I quote a note sent to CANDR-L
>>then below.
>>
>>I've wondered why Chris chose such an early time of year for the epoch. I
>>could be so that
>>(1) the new year is closer to the solstice or
>>(2) in choosing year 0 to begin on JDN -337, he overlooked the fact that
>>unlike most years whose number is divisible by 28, year 0 has no leap
>>week, so causing year 1 to begin on JDN 27 rather than JDN 34 as expected.
>>
>>Possibility (1) is suggested by the fact that JDN 27 is December 21 in the
>>proleptic Gregorian calendar.
>>
>>I have a table on Bonavian New Years at
>>http://www.the-light.com/cal/kp_Bonavian_ny.txt
>>
>>Karl
>>
>>08(04(12
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>http://search.msn.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Amos Shapir
In reply to this post by Palmen, KEV (Karl)
Actually, my algorithm works backwards, from JDN to Bonavian date.  It
starts with JDN+337 and
then computes number of weeks from epoch -- let's use today's number:
(2453896+337)/7 = 350604 weeks + 5 days (which makes it a Friday);

Then cast out periods of 896 years; each has (52*28+5)*32 -1 = 46751 weeks:
350604 / 46751 = 7 periods + 23347 weeks;

Then cast out periods of 28 years, each has 52*28+5 = 1461 weeks:
23347 / 1461 = 15 periods + 1432 weeks;

This brings us to the last year of the current 28-year cycle.  Since year 28
has 52 weeks, we get:
year = 896*7 + 28*15 + 27 = 6719 (starting at year 0)
week = 1432 - (1461-52) +1 = week 24, which is week 11 of spring, 2nd week
of June.
Friday is June 13.

Can you spot any error in this?


>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:07:01 +0100
>
>Dear Amos and Calendar People
>

>KARL SAYS: I don't know Perl.
>Can Amos give us the algorithm he uses to determine which JDN year Y begins
>on?
>
>Karl
>
>08(04(12

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
Dear Amos and Calendar People

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Amos Shapir
Sent: 09 June 2006 15:28
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other
40


Actually, my algorithm works backwards, from JDN to Bonavian date.  It
starts with JDN+337 and
then computes number of weeks from epoch -- let's use today's number:
(2453896+337)/7 = 350604 weeks + 5 days (which makes it a Friday);

Then cast out periods of 896 years; each has (52*28+5)*32 -1 = 46751 weeks:
350604 / 46751 = 7 periods + 23347 weeks;

KARL SAYS:
This is the suspicious part.
Amos's count of 896-year periods in incremented at each day whose JDN is 46751*N-337. This happens the be the FIRST day of each year whose number is divisible by 896. This in not when the leap week is dropped. It is dropped at the end of the year. So this part is one year out of sync. It will drop the last week from 895th year of the 896-year cycle instead of the 896th year.

Amos's algorithm would give dates for each year divisible 896 that are one week out compared to other years. This assumes that the rest of the algorithm is correct.

Amos has incorrectly assumed that the epoch is at the start of the period. This assumption would be correct if the epoch were the first day of year 1 rather than year 0.

In general, counting the number of periods to cast off requires an offset, because the epoch is need not be at the start of the period.

NunmberOfPeriods = floor((DaysFromEpoch + Offset) / DaysInPeriod)

I leave it to you to work out the correct value of the offset.

Karl
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ERA start Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Brij Bhushan Vij
Karl, Amos, Lance sirs:
>I leave it to you to work out the correct value of the offset.
May I recall our exchange of mails during 2004-2005 pointing to Year start
for Era reconcilation with Year 1921st i.e.[(2000-80)/128]+1 whereform
calculations for 128/896-year cycles could be stream lined. I placed my
worked figures for "Kali Era count at:
http://www.brijvij.com/eraPts-n-Moons.doc".
>>Then cast out periods of 896 years; each has (52*28+5)*32 -1 = 46751
>>weeks:
>350604 / 46751 = 7 periods + 23347 weeks;
This is 2454233 days=6719y 170d  17h.4626; and may shift the date of START
of Era of Creation (Julian Day =Zero, at 01 January 4713 BCE).
Brij Bhushan Vij
(Friday, Kali 5107-W08-05)/D-162(Saturday, 2006 Jun 10H12:53(decimal) ET
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
(365th day of Year is World Day)
******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****
"Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"
Contact # 001(201)675-8548


>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List              
><[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40
>Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:55:28 +0100
>
>Dear Amos and Calendar People
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
>[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Amos Shapir
>Sent: 09 June 2006 15:28
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other
>40
>
>
>Actually, my algorithm works backwards, from JDN to Bonavian date.  It
>starts with JDN+337 and
>then computes number of weeks from epoch -- let's use today's number:
>(2453896+337)/7 = 350604 weeks + 5 days (which makes it a Friday);
>
>Then cast out periods of 896 years; each has (52*28+5)*32 -1 = 46751 weeks:
>350604 / 46751 = 7 periods + 23347 weeks;
>
>KARL SAYS:
>This is the suspicious part.
>Amos's count of 896-year periods in incremented at each day whose JDN is
>46751*N-337. This happens the be the FIRST day of each year whose number is
>divisible by 896. This in not when the leap week is dropped. It is dropped
>at the end of the year. So this part is one year out of sync. It will drop
>the last week from 895th year of the 896-year cycle instead of the 896th
>year.
>
>Amos's algorithm would give dates for each year divisible 896 that are one
>week out compared to other years. This assumes that the rest of the
>algorithm is correct.
>
>Amos has incorrectly assumed that the epoch is at the start of the period.
>This assumption would be correct if the epoch were the first day of year 1
>rather than year 0.
>
>In general, counting the number of periods to cast off requires an offset,
>because the epoch is need not be at the start of the period.
>
>NunmberOfPeriods = floor((DaysFromEpoch + Offset) / DaysInPeriod)
>
>I leave it to you to work out the correct value of the offset.
>
>Karl
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ERA start Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Amos Shapir
I think we have read the same defiinition of the Bonavian Calendar by Chris
Carrier.  Where did you get the idea that the epoch is *not* the start of
the calendar cycle?


>>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>

>>Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:55:28 +0100
>>

>>Amos has incorrectly assumed that the epoch is at the start of the period.
>>This assumption would be correct if the epoch were the first day of year 1
>>rather than year 0.
>>
>>In general, counting the number of periods to cast off requires an offset,
>>because the epoch is need not be at the start of the period.
>>
>>NunmberOfPeriods = floor((DaysFromEpoch + Offset) / DaysInPeriod)
>>
>>I leave it to you to work out the correct value of the offset.
>>
>>Karl

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ERA start Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
Dear Amos and Calendar People

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Amos Shapir
Sent: 11 June 2006 12:04
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: ERA start Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE:
Add to the other 40


I think we have read the same defiinition of the Bonavian Calendar by Chris
Carrier.  Where did you get the idea that the epoch is *not* the start of
the calendar cycle?

KARL SAYS:
I meant that the epoch (start of year 0) is not at the start of a 896-year cycle that ends with the dropping of the leap week of a year whose number is divisible by 896. It is in fact one year before the end of such a cycle.

Karl

08(04(15 till noon


>>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>

>>Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:55:28 +0100
>>

>>Amos has incorrectly assumed that the epoch is at the start of the period.
>>This assumption would be correct if the epoch were the first day of year 1
>>rather than year 0.
>>
>>In general, counting the number of periods to cast off requires an offset,
>>because the epoch is need not be at the start of the period.
>>
>>NunmberOfPeriods = floor((DaysFromEpoch + Offset) / DaysInPeriod)
>>
>>I leave it to you to work out the correct value of the offset.
>>
>>Karl

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
In reply to this post by Amos Shapir
Dear Amos and Calendar People

Amos is apparently still convinced that his algorithm is correct.

I show him with JDN 324820 and JDN 324819, that it that it contradicts itself over the number of weeks in year 895.


JDN 324820:
(324820+337)/7 = 46751 weeks + 0 days (which makes it a Sunday);

Then cast out periods of 896 years; each has (52*28+5)*32 -1 = 46751 weeks:
46751 / 46751 = 1 periods + 0 weeks;

So it is therefore the first day of year 896.


JDN 324819:
(324819+337)/7 = 46750 weeks + 6 days (which makes it a Saturday);

Then cast out periods of 896 years; each has (52*28+5)*32 -1 = 46751 weeks:
46750 / 46751 = 0 periods + 46750 weeks;

Then cast out periods of 28 years, each has 52*28+5 = 1461 weeks:
46750 / 1461 = 31 periods + 1459 weeks;

This brings us to the last year of the first 28-year cycle.  Since year 28
has 52 weeks, we get:
year = 896*0 + 28*31 + 27 = 895 (starting at year 0)
week = 1459 - (1461-52) +1 = week 51 (51st week)
day = Saturday (last day of week).

As this day (JDN 324819) is only one day before the day (JDN 324820), which is reckoned to be the first day of year 896, it implies that year 895 has only 51 weeks, which contradicts the supposition that it has 52 weeks.


Amos's casting off method is generally valid, only if either
the intercalation (addition or removal) occurs at the end of the period being cast off or
no sub-periods are cast off.


Karl

08(04(16

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Amos Shapir
Sent: 09 June 2006 15:28
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other
40


Actually, my algorithm works backwards, from JDN to Bonavian date.  It
starts with JDN+337 and
then computes number of weeks from epoch -- let's use today's number:
(2453896+337)/7 = 350604 weeks + 5 days (which makes it a Friday);

Then cast out periods of 896 years; each has (52*28+5)*32 -1 = 46751 weeks:
350604 / 46751 = 7 periods + 23347 weeks;

Then cast out periods of 28 years, each has 52*28+5 = 1461 weeks:
23347 / 1461 = 15 periods + 1432 weeks;


This brings us to the last year of the current 28-year cycle.  Since year 28
has 52 weeks, we get:
year = 896*7 + 28*15 + 27 = 6719 (starting at year 0)
week = 1432 - (1461-52) +1 = week 24, which is week 11 of spring, 2nd week
of June.
Friday is June 13.

Can you spot any error in this?


>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:07:01 +0100
>
>Dear Amos and Calendar People
>

>KARL SAYS: I don't know Perl.
>Can Amos give us the algorithm he uses to determine which JDN year Y begins
>on?
>
>Karl
>
>08(04(12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Amos Shapir
You have missed 300 weeks somewhere along the computation, the correct JDNs
are 326919 and 326920; but you were right that my algorithm generates a
51-week year.  Oh well, back to the drawing board...


>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>

>Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:47:36 +0100
>
>Dear Amos and Calendar People
>
>Amos is apparently still convinced that his algorithm is correct.
>
>I show him with JDN 324820 and JDN 324819, that it that it contradicts
>itself over the number of weeks in year 895.
>
>
>JDN 324820:
>(324820+337)/7 = 46751 weeks + 0 days (which makes it a Sunday);
>
>Then cast out periods of 896 years; each has (52*28+5)*32 -1 = 46751 weeks:
>46751 / 46751 = 1 periods + 0 weeks;
>
>So it is therefore the first day of year 896.
>
>
>JDN 324819:
>(324819+337)/7 = 46750 weeks + 6 days (which makes it a Saturday);
>
>Then cast out periods of 896 years; each has (52*28+5)*32 -1 = 46751 weeks:
>46750 / 46751 = 0 periods + 46750 weeks;
>
>Then cast out periods of 28 years, each has 52*28+5 = 1461 weeks:
>46750 / 1461 = 31 periods + 1459 weeks;
>
>This brings us to the last year of the first 28-year cycle.  Since year 28
>has 52 weeks, we get:
>year = 896*0 + 28*31 + 27 = 895 (starting at year 0)
>week = 1459 - (1461-52) +1 = week 51 (51st week)
>day = Saturday (last day of week).
>
>As this day (JDN 324819) is only one day before the day (JDN 324820), which
>is reckoned to be the first day of year 896, it implies that year 895 has
>only 51 weeks, which contradicts the supposition that it has 52 weeks.
>
>
>Amos's casting off method is generally valid, only if either
>the intercalation (addition or removal) occurs at the end of the period
>being cast off or
>no sub-periods are cast off.
>
>
>Karl
>
>08(04(16
>

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other 40

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
Dear Amos and Calendar People

I think Amos's algorithm would work for an epoch at the start of year 1 (JDN=27). Then you assume that the last year of a 28-year period has 53 weeks and it gets corrected to 52 weeks if it is also the last year of a 896-year period by the very same mechanism that gave rise to the 51-week year of Amos's algorithm.

The algorithm can also be applied to years before year 1, by casting out a negative number of 896-year periods and a non-negative number of 28-year periods.

Karl

08(04(18

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Amos Shapir
Sent: 13 June 2006 16:05
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Bonavian Epoch RE: Leap Week Calendar? RE: Add to the other
40


You have missed 300 weeks somewhere along the computation, the correct JDNs
are 326919 and 326920; but you were right that my algorithm generates a
51-week year.  Oh well, back to the drawing board...


>From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>

>Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:47:36 +0100
>
>Dear Amos and Calendar People
>
>Amos is apparently still convinced that his algorithm is correct.
>
>I show him with JDN 324820 and JDN 324819, that it that it contradicts
>itself over the number of weeks in year 895.
>
>
>JDN 324820:
>(324820+337)/7 = 46751 weeks + 0 days (which makes it a Sunday);
>
>Then cast out periods of 896 years; each has (52*28+5)*32 -1 = 46751 weeks:
>46751 / 46751 = 1 periods + 0 weeks;
>
>So it is therefore the first day of year 896.
>
>
>JDN 324819:
>(324819+337)/7 = 46750 weeks + 6 days (which makes it a Saturday);
>
>Then cast out periods of 896 years; each has (52*28+5)*32 -1 = 46751 weeks:
>46750 / 46751 = 0 periods + 46750 weeks;
>
>Then cast out periods of 28 years, each has 52*28+5 = 1461 weeks:
>46750 / 1461 = 31 periods + 1459 weeks;
>
>This brings us to the last year of the first 28-year cycle.  Since year 28
>has 52 weeks, we get:
>year = 896*0 + 28*31 + 27 = 895 (starting at year 0)
>week = 1459 - (1461-52) +1 = week 51 (51st week)
>day = Saturday (last day of week).
>
>As this day (JDN 324819) is only one day before the day (JDN 324820), which
>is reckoned to be the first day of year 896, it implies that year 895 has
>only 51 weeks, which contradicts the supposition that it has 52 weeks.
>
>
>Amos's casting off method is generally valid, only if either
>the intercalation (addition or removal) occurs at the end of the period
>being cast off or
>no sub-periods are cast off.
>
>
>Karl
>
>08(04(16
>

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/