An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
Dear Charles, Victor, Tom and Calendar People

I was thinking about how I would do intercalation for the Ogam wheel myself.

I've decided that I'll do it by doubling the extra day between Elder (R) and Birch (B) rather than cancelling any sacrifices, because it is simpler and respects the integrity of the 364-day period of thirteen 28-day tree-months running from Birch to Elder. It also allows one to make any year a leap year so enabling one to follow the sun (or moon) more closely.

When the extra day is doubled it is counted as one day by the Ogam wheel, then the Ogam wheel always counts 365 days in every year and so no sacrifices need be cancelled.

I've decided to double the extra day whenever the southern solstice occurs on Elder 28 (R28) rather than Elder 27 (R27) in U.S. EST, which is equivalent to starting the days at 05:00 UT as with the Moonwise Calendar.
http://www.moonwise.co.uk/moonwisecalendarrules.php 
For the period of (1989 to 2007) the extra day is doubled in years 1991 (g#7), 1995 (g#11), 1999 (g#15), 2003 (g#19), 2007 (g#4). For this period, it puts the OW dates on the same days as Charles charts except for
1991-12-24 to 1992-11-24 B1t- to R1u+
1995-12-24 to 1997-09-01 B1r+ to M1u+
1999-12-24 to 2002-05-12 B1m- to H0u+
2003-12-24 to 2005-07-07 B1d+ to T0u+
2007-12-24 to 2007-12-31 B1l- to B8n-
when the OW dates are a day later than in Charles's charts

For the range of 1950 to 2052, the leap years are:
1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978
1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011
2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048

Each leap year at the start of a row is 5 years after the previous leap year and
each leap year at the end of a row is 5 years before the next leap year.
The leap years have a strong tendency to repeat once every 103 years. The above list shows one complete 103-year cycle.

I've reckoned the leap years with the aid of
http://www.stellafane.com/moon_phase/equinox.htm
and
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html

The tree-months happen to have good agreement with the Gravesian tree-months for the Dee-Cecil calendar.
See
http://www.rumblefische.com/calendars/cconverter.html
for Dee-Cecil converter

This is just one of many possible Ogam Wheel calendars.

If Charles is really willing to teach me how to use his Ogam Wheel calendar, I may give it a go.

Karl

07(15(05
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar

Charles Moyer
Karl, and all,

> From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> <[hidden email]>
> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:36:43 -0000
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar
>
> Dear Charles, Victor, Tom and Calendar People
>
> I was thinking about how I would do intercalation for the Ogam wheel myself.
>
> I've decided that I'll do it by doubling the extra day between Elder (R) and
> Birch (B) rather than cancelling any sacrifices, because it is simpler and
> respects the integrity of the 364-day period of thirteen 28-day tree-months
> running from Birch to Elder. It also allows one to make any year a leap year
> so enabling one to follow the sun (or moon) more closely.
    Simpler? The cancelled sacrifices naturally happen because of the
position of the outer wheel in given golden # years. So you would just
simply not move the inner wheel for one day after it reaches its intercalary
day between R28 and B1? Have you considered what this might do to integrity
of the moon phase?
>
> When the extra day is doubled it is counted as one day by the Ogam wheel, then
> the Ogam wheel always counts 365 days in every year and so no sacrifices need
> be cancelled.
But with 13 months of 28 days + one intercalary day there is already 365
days except where the outer wheel gets adjusted by the moon. We do not want
the moon phase to wander off from the solar reckoning.

>
> I've decided to double the extra day whenever the southern solstice occurs on
> Elder 28 (R28) rather than Elder 27 (R27) in U.S. EST, which is equivalent to
> starting the days at 05:00 UT as with the Moonwise Calendar.
> http://www.moonwise.co.uk/moonwisecalendarrules.php
> For the period of (1989 to 2007) the extra day is doubled in years 1991 (g#7),
> 1995 (g#11), 1999 (g#15), 2003 (g#19), 2007 (g#4). For this period, it puts
> the OW dates on the same days as Charles charts except for
> 1991-12-24 to 1992-11-24 B1t- to R1u+
> 1995-12-24 to 1997-09-01 B1r+ to M1u+
> 1999-12-24 to 2002-05-12 B1m- to H0u+
> 2003-12-24 to 2005-07-07 B1d+ to T0u+
> 2007-12-24 to 2007-12-31 B1l- to B8n-
> when the OW dates are a day later than in Charles's charts
>
> For the range of 1950 to 2052, the leap years are:
> 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978
> 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011
> 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048
>
> Each leap year at the start of a row is 5 years after the previous leap year
> and
> each leap year at the end of a row is 5 years before the next leap year.
> The leap years have a strong tendency to repeat once every 103 years. The
> above list shows one complete 103-year cycle.
>
> I've reckoned the leap years with the aid of
> http://www.stellafane.com/moon_phase/equinox.htm
> and
> http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html
>
> The tree-months happen to have good agreement with the Gravesian tree-months
> for the Dee-Cecil calendar.
> See
> http://www.rumblefische.com/calendars/cconverter.html
> for Dee-Cecil converter
>
> This is just one of many possible Ogam Wheel calendars.
>
> If Charles is really willing to teach me how to use his Ogam Wheel calendar, I
> may give it a go.
It seems to me that Karl is way beyond "giving it a go" if he is finding new
ways of manipulating its wheels. But again I would stress that in the OW's
race with the GC it is not necessary that it be neck and neck on every lap,
but it is important to the OW that if it claims the status of luni-solar
that moon phases stay neck and neck or as close as possible with its solar
tree days. I concede that R28 concurs more often with winter solstice, and
this makes the next day, traditional known as the day of the Birth of the
Divine Child, make more sense in all respects. Yule find that also outside
the traditions of Hanukkah and Christmas.

Charles
>
> Karl
>
> 07(15(05
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar

Palmen, KEV (Karl)
In reply to this post by Palmen, KEV (Karl)
Dear Charles, Victor, Tom and Calendar People

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Charles Moyer
Sent: 05 December 2005 13:53
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar


Karl, and all,

> From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> <[hidden email]>
> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:36:43 -0000
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar
>
> Dear Charles, Victor, Tom and Calendar People
>
> I was thinking about how I would do intercalation for the Ogam wheel myself.
>
> I've decided that I'll do it by doubling the extra day between Elder (R) and
> Birch (B) rather than cancelling any sacrifices, because it is simpler and
> respects the integrity of the 364-day period of thirteen 28-day tree-months
> running from Birch to Elder. It also allows one to make any year a leap year
> so enabling one to follow the sun (or moon) more closely.
    Simpler? The cancelled sacrifices naturally happen because of the
position of the outer wheel in given golden # years. So you would just
simply not move the inner wheel for one day after it reaches its intercalary
day between R28 and B1? Have you considered what this might do to integrity
of the moon phase?

KARL SAYS: Yes. If the extra day between B28 and B1 were doubled, I would keep the Ogam wheel at the same position for both of these days.

I disagree with Charles assertion that cancelled sacrifices naturally happen just because of the position of the outer wheel in given golden # years. I believe there is another rule in operation that causes only some of these sacrifices to be cancelled and this rule involves the Gregorian calendar. Also the fact that leap days occur in different positions in different leap years makes it more complicated in practice.

The doubling of the extra days would preserve the integrity of the OW moon phases, by ensuring that Birch 1 always occurs 3 days after the southern solstice. Furthermore, both the neighbouring tree-months have sacrifices so mitigating any short term effect of the doubled extra day on the moon phase.
Indeed I think that's why the tree-months (1,4,6,8,10,13) counting from Birch with have sacrifices rather than the simpler (2,4,6,8,10,12).


CHARLES CONTINUES (first quoting me)
>
> When the extra day is doubled it is counted as one day by the Ogam wheel, then
> the Ogam wheel always counts 365 days in every year and so no sacrifices need
> be cancelled.
But with 13 months of 28 days + one intercalary day there is already 365
days except where the outer wheel gets adjusted by the moon. We do not want
the moon phase to wander off from the solar reckoning.

KARL ASKS:
What does Charles mean by "except where the outer wheel gets adjusted by the moon"?
What does Charles mean by "We do not want the moon phase to wander off from the solar reckoning."?

KARL SAYS:
For the Ogam wheel to work without cancelling any sacrifices it must COUNT 365 days in a year, but in reality a year must sometimes have 366 days. The doubling of the extra day that is counted by the OW as one day provides a year 366 days that is counted by the OW as 365 days.


CHARLES CONTINUES (first quoting me):
> If Charles is really willing to teach me how to use his Ogam Wheel calendar, I
> may give it a go.
It seems to me that Karl is way beyond "giving it a go" if he is finding new
ways of manipulating its wheels. But again I would stress that in the OW's
race with the GC it is not necessary that it be neck and neck on every lap,

KARL SAYS: Agreed. My Ogam wheel calendar demonstrates this. Furthermore, my OW calendar would work even if the Gregorian race car were to leave the race.

CHARLES CONTINUES:
but it is important to the OW that if it claims the status of luni-solar
that moon phases stay neck and neck or as close as possible with its solar
tree days.

KARL ASKS: What does Charles mean by "that moon phases stay neck and neck or as close as possible with its solar tree days"?

CHARLES CONTINUES:
 I concede that R28 concurs more often with winter solstice, and
this makes the next day, traditional known as the day of the Birth of the
Divine Child, make more sense in all respects. Yule find that also outside
the traditions of Hanukkah and Christmas.


KARL CONCLUDES: I think Charles is right not to attempt to teach me to use the OW the way he does. This note suggests that his technical communication skills are not up to the job. Can any other calendar person answer my questions to Charles?

Karl

07(15(05
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar

Charles Moyer
> From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> <[hidden email]>
> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:45:53 -0000
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar
>
> Dear Charles, Victor, Tom and Calendar People
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Charles Moyer
> Sent: 05 December 2005 13:53
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar
>
>
> Karl, and all,
>
>> From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
>> <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:36:43 -0000
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar
>>
>> Dear Charles, Victor, Tom and Calendar People
>>
>> I was thinking about how I would do intercalation for the Ogam wheel myself.
>>
>> I've decided that I'll do it by doubling the extra day between Elder (R) and
>> Birch (B) rather than cancelling any sacrifices, because it is simpler and
>> respects the integrity of the 364-day period of thirteen 28-day tree-months
>> running from Birch to Elder. It also allows one to make any year a leap year
>> so enabling one to follow the sun (or moon) more closely.
> Simpler? The cancelled sacrifices naturally happen because of the
> position of the outer wheel in given golden # years. So you would just
> simply not move the inner wheel for one day after it reaches its intercalary
> day between R28 and B1? Have you considered what this might do to integrity
> of the moon phase?
>
> KARL SAYS: Yes. If the extra day between B28 and B1 were doubled, I would keep
> the Ogam wheel at the same position for both of these days.
>
> I disagree with Charles assertion that cancelled sacrifices naturally happen
> just because of the position of the outer wheel in given golden # years. I
> believe there is another rule in operation that causes only some of these
> sacrifices to be cancelled and this rule involves the Gregorian calendar. Also
> the fact that leap days occur in different positions in different leap years
> makes it more complicated in practice.

    Karl is telling me that I use some rule which I do not observe yet if
one looks at the charts they show exactly what happens when a normally
sacrificed uruz is out of range on the outer wheel.

>
> The doubling of the extra days would preserve the integrity of the OW moon
> phases, by ensuring that Birch 1 always occurs 3 days after the southern
> solstice. Furthermore, both the neighbouring tree-months have sacrifices so
> mitigating any short term effect of the doubled extra day on the moon phase.
> Indeed I think that's why the tree-months (1,4,6,8,10,13) counting from Birch
> with have sacrifices rather than the simpler (2,4,6,8,10,12).
>
>
> CHARLES CONTINUES (first quoting me)
>>
>> When the extra day is doubled it is counted as one day by the Ogam wheel,
>> then
>> the Ogam wheel always counts 365 days in every year and so no sacrifices need
>> be cancelled.
> But with 13 months of 28 days + one intercalary day there is already 365
> days except where the outer wheel gets adjusted by the moon. We do not want
> the moon phase to wander off from the solar reckoning.
>
> KARL ASKS:
> What does Charles mean by "except where the outer wheel gets adjusted by the
> moon"?
> What does Charles mean by "We do not want the moon phase to wander off from
> the solar reckoning."?

The moon phase must proceed each day so its sacrificed uruz adjust the outer
wheel without getting out of lunar step. If there were any arbitrary
adjustments to the lunar cycle to conform to a solar calendar then the lunar
aspect of the lunisolar calendar would be compromised. I am not certain that
Karl's proposed double count would not screw up the lunar count.

>
> KARL SAYS:
> For the Ogam wheel to work without cancelling any sacrifices it must COUNT 365
> days in a year, but in reality a year must sometimes have 366 days. The
> doubling of the extra day that is counted by the OW as one day provides a year
> 366 days that is counted by the OW as 365 days.
>
>
> CHARLES CONTINUES (first quoting me):
>> If Charles is really willing to teach me how to use his Ogam Wheel calendar,
>> I
>> may give it a go.
> It seems to me that Karl is way beyond "giving it a go" if he is finding new
> ways of manipulating its wheels. But again I would stress that in the OW's
> race with the GC it is not necessary that it be neck and neck on every lap,
>
> KARL SAYS: Agreed. My Ogam wheel calendar demonstrates this. Furthermore, my
> OW calendar would work even if the Gregorian race car were to leave the race.

And it is only Karl's opinion that the OW could not find the course without
the GC's guidance. It is my opinion that the OW would stay the course to the
finish with nothing to follow but the sun and moon which is all is is trying
to stay neck and neck with in the first place.
>
> CHARLES CONTINUES:
> but it is important to the OW that if it claims the status of luni-solar
> that moon phases stay neck and neck or as close as possible with its solar
> tree days.
>
> KARL ASKS: What does Charles mean by "that moon phases stay neck and neck or
> as close as possible with its solar tree days"?

How could Karl ask such a simple question about a lunisolar calendar?

>
> CHARLES CONTINUES:
> I concede that R28 concurs more often with winter solstice, and
> this makes the next day, traditional known as the day of the Birth of the
> Divine Child, make more sense in all respects. Yule find that also outside
> the traditions of Hanukkah and Christmas.
>
>
> KARL CONCLUDES: I think Charles is right not to attempt to teach me to use the
> OW the way he does. This note suggests that his technical communication skills
> are not up to the job. Can any other calendar person answer my questions to
> Charles?

Karl first learned to use the Ogam Wheel the way I do but I have no idea why
he wishes to obfuscate the simple working of the OW. It is obvious that he
loves to tinker with other possibilities, but he makes it difficult for me
to answer questions which have no satisfactory answers (for him) because
they are designed to make it appear that I do not know how to operate my own
calendar. It is disingenuous for Karl to ask if anyone else can answer the
questions he puts to me because he knows he has the advantage on this list
of being the only other one who has demonstrated that he knows how the OW
works. Let's face it folk if Karl knew the OW did not work he would spend
about as much time on it as he does on Derek's Genesis Calendar.

Charles
R12r+ ( only 20 more days till B2 and arrival at Simon's little short stone
at Stonehenge in Position 15, Golden #12)
>
> Karl
>
> 07(15(05
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar

Victor Engel
Dear Charles, Karl, and Calendar People,

Charles Moyer wrote:

> And it is only Karl's opinion that the OW could not find the course without
> the GC's guidance. It is my opinion that the OW would stay the course to the
> finish with nothing to follow but the sun and moon which is all is is trying
> to stay neck and neck with in the first place.

I agree with this statement. However, thus far, I've not seen any rules
stating how to use the sun and the moon to adjust the Ogham wheel. On
the contrary, I thought Charles' proposition was that, rather than
adjusting the OW with lunar/solar phenomena, the OW actually predicts
these same phenomena. Certainly, it does a good job of predicting them
over the short term, but occasional adjustments are needed over the long
term, something that very well could be done using astronomical
observations. Perhaps an adjustment at each solar eclipse would be just
the ticket.

Victor
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar

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

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Victor Engel
Sent: 06 December 2005 18:17
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar


Dear Charles, Karl, and Calendar People,

Charles Moyer wrote:

> And it is only Karl's opinion that the OW could not find the course without
> the GC's guidance. It is my opinion that the OW would stay the course to the
> finish with nothing to follow but the sun and moon which is all is is trying
> to stay neck and neck with in the first place.

I agree with this statement. However, thus far, I've not seen any rules
stating how to use the sun and the moon to adjust the Ogham wheel. On
the contrary, I thought Charles' proposition was that, rather than
adjusting the OW with lunar/solar phenomena, the OW actually predicts
these same phenomena. Certainly, it does a good job of predicting them
over the short term, but occasional adjustments are needed over the long
term, something that very well could be done using astronomical
observations. Perhaps an adjustment at each solar eclipse would be just
the ticket.

KARL SAYS:
Actually my opinion is that Charles's usage of the OW relies on the GC. I'll explain this in detail in a later note. My OW solstice calendar shows that the GC is not actually necessary for the OW. Victor's idea of adjusting it to each eclipse would form the basis of another OW calendar (exact rules need working out).

The fact is (not an opinion) is that the OW is not a calendar on its own. It cannot alone predict when any solstice or eclipse will occur, but it can predict approximately how many days an eclipse will occur before or after a given solstice. Note that the 13-month solar calendar actually helps with such eclipse prediction, unlike a 12-month solar calendar. This is because the Saros is 12 lunations short of a 19-year cycle and the 19-year cycle is divided into 12 nearly equal parts by the times when a given moon phase rune jumps a tree month (like blue moon in reverse).

Karl

07(15(06 till noon
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar

Charles Moyer
In reply to this post by Victor Engel
Victor and all,

> From: Victor Engel <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> <[hidden email]>
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:16:40 -0600
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar
>
> Dear Charles, Karl, and Calendar People,
>
> Charles Moyer wrote:
>
>> And it is only Karl's opinion that the OW could not find the course without
>> the GC's guidance. It is my opinion that the OW would stay the course to the
>> finish with nothing to follow but the sun and moon which is all is is trying
>> to stay neck and neck with in the first place.
>
> I agree with this statement. However, thus far, I've not seen any rules
> stating how to use the sun and the moon to adjust the Ogham wheel. On
> the contrary, I thought Charles' proposition was that, rather than
> adjusting the OW with lunar/solar phenomena, the OW actually predicts
> these same phenomena. Certainly, it does a good job of predicting them
> over the short term, but occasional adjustments are needed over the long
> term, something that very well could be done using astronomical
> observations. Perhaps an adjustment at each solar eclipse would be just
> the ticket.
>
> Victor

I suggest that Victor (and Karl) go back to the rules posted on Victor's own
site, but once again to demonstrate that the adjustments I suggest there for
the Ogam Wheel give correct results to solar and lunar alignments let me
give a couple more examples. And this time I will take them from years that
Karl has suggested I examine to supposedly show me where 19 year periods
would vary from the present one. And once again I state that if the Ogam
Wheel requires rules which I am not aware of and consequently could not be
using then it would be impossible for it to give such consistent results
over any extended period. I do not accept Karl's conclusion that it could do
this while its day to day rules are insufficient.

Karl suggested periods beginning in 1894 and 1970. OK-
A northern solar eclipse occurred on April 6,1894. Therefore 1894 + 19X5 =
1989. So adjust the OW to Golden#5 putting the full moon rune of the middle
wheel in line with position #2. Now align the Oak rune D of the inner wheel
at summer solstice in Pos.#5 and count back 48 days and you will be at new
moon on F20 in Pos.#17. This is equivalent to GC April 6.

A northern solar eclipse occurred on March 7, 1970. With the Ogam Wheel once
again set to Golden#5 if you follow the same procedure above you will find
the new moon at Ash N18, equivalent to March 7. If you wish to check this
eclipse against the later summer solstice I think it is about 29 + 48 days
later. OW and GC are once again as almost always neck and neck except of
course when they have their little difference over leap days which never
amounts to more than a day for awhile and is no big issue (except as a red
herring).

After about 300 years (as Karl has pointed out) there is required an
adjustment of shifting all by one position, but then it should be good for
another 300 years or so. We won't worry about this until about 2300 AD.

Charles
R13h+
                   
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar

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

CHARLES SAID:
I suggest that Victor (and Karl) go back to the rules posted on Victor's own
site, but once again to demonstrate that the adjustments I suggest there for
the Ogam Wheel give correct results to solar and lunar alignments let me
give a couple more examples.

KARL SAYS: Those rules are not complete. Charles himself said that a caveat needs to be added to them. Has he added that Caveat?
If no, I suggest he does so.


CHARLES SAID:
And once again I state that if the Ogam Wheel requires rules which I am not aware of and consequently could not be using then it would be impossible for it to give such consistent results over any extended period.

KARL SAYS: Charles could be consistently applying a rule of which he is not aware
and so get consistent results. I tried to make him aware of the rule by asking him to operate the OW in a situation in which it would be impossible to observe this rule. Charles refused. He referred to this situation as a calendar vacuum.


CHARLES SAID IN AN EXAMPLE: ...you will be at new
moon on F20 in Pos.#17. This is equivalent to GC April 6.

KARL ASKS: How does Charles know that F20 of that year is equivalent to GC April 6?

KARL STATES: It is when the tree dates occur that is controversial and not which moon phase rune any tree date has.

I have suggested that Charles works out the cancelled sacrifices in these two 19-year cycles (1894-1912) and (1970-1988) for comparison with each other.


Karl

07(15(07
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Charles OW Calendar and an OW Solstice Calendar

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

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Charles Moyer
Sent: 06 December 2005 12:12
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar


CHARLES SAYS (first quoting me):
> I disagree with Charles assertion that cancelled sacrifices naturally happen
> just because of the position of the outer wheel in given golden # years. I
> believe there is another rule in operation that causes only some of these
> sacrifices to be cancelled and this rule involves the Gregorian calendar. Also
> the fact that leap days occur in different positions in different leap years
> makes it more complicated in practice.

    Karl is telling me that I use some rule which I do not observe yet if
one looks at the charts they show exactly what happens when a normally
sacrificed uruz is out of range on the outer wheel.

KARL MEANT: Charles uses and observes some rule that he denies the existence of. I give this in detail later in this note.


CHARLES CONTINUES (first quoting me)

> The doubling of the extra days would preserve the integrity of the OW moon
> phases, by ensuring that Birch 1 always occurs 3 days after the southern
> solstice. Furthermore, both the neighbouring tree-months have sacrifices so
> mitigating any short term effect of the doubled extra day on the moon phase.
> Indeed I think that's why the tree-months (1,4,6,8,10,13) counting from Birch
> with have sacrifices rather than the simpler (2,4,6,8,10,12).
>
>
> CHARLES CONTINUES (first quoting me)
>>
>> When the extra day is doubled it is counted as one day by the Ogam wheel,
>> then
>> the Ogam wheel always counts 365 days in every year and so no sacrifices need
>> be cancelled.
> But with 13 months of 28 days + one intercalary day there is already 365
> days except where the outer wheel gets adjusted by the moon. We do not want
> the moon phase to wander off from the solar reckoning.
>
> KARL ASKS:
> What does Charles mean by "except where the outer wheel gets adjusted by the
> moon"?
> What does Charles mean by "We do not want the moon phase to wander off from
> the solar reckoning."?

The moon phase must proceed each day so its sacrificed uruz adjust the outer
wheel without getting out of lunar step. If there were any arbitrary
adjustments to the lunar cycle to conform to a solar calendar then the lunar
aspect of the lunisolar calendar would be compromised. I am not certain that
Karl's proposed double count would not screw up the lunar count.

KARL SAYS:
The leap days have no effect at all on which tree calendar date has which moon phase rune. The leap days merely ensure that tree calendar dates are aligned well with the solstices, so that the OW will align the moon phases well with the moon phase runes.


CHARLES CONTINUES (first quoting me):
> KARL CONCLUDES: I think Charles is right not to attempt to teach me to use the
> OW the way he does. This note suggests that his technical communication skills
> are not up to the job. Can any other calendar person answer my questions to
> Charles?

Karl first learned to use the Ogam Wheel the way I do but I have no idea why
he wishes to obfuscate the simple working of the OW. It is obvious that he
loves to tinker with other possibilities, but he makes it difficult for me
to answer questions which have no satisfactory answers (for him) because
they are designed to make it appear that I do not know how to operate my own
calendar. It is disingenuous for Karl to ask if anyone else can answer the
questions he puts to me because he knows he has the advantage on this list
of being the only other one who has demonstrated that he knows how the OW
works. Let's face it folk if Karl knew the OW did not work he would spend
about as much time on it as he does on Derek's Genesis Calendar.

KARL SAYS:
I do know how the OW works and its NOT a calendar on it own.

I have learned to use the OW the way Charles does only through assuming an extra rule, whose existence is denied by Charles:

"a sacrifice is cancelled only if the tree calendar dates are ahead of the Gravesian Gregorian tree calendar dates (which are clearly marked on the charts of 1989-2007)."

Without such a rule I'd have been lost.


Charles has stated some time ago a rule to the effect that a (u+) sacrifice is cancelled (so causing a leap day to occur) in a tree month for which a u- sacrifice is not possible . In each 19-year cycle there are ELEVEN sacrifices that would be cancelled according to that rule. They are

H1u+ G#7
R1u+ G#8
B1u+ G#8/9
T1u+ G#10
M1u+ G#13
F0u+ G#15
H0u+ G#18
R0u+ G#19
B0u+ G#19/1
T0u+ G#2
F1u+ G#4

However, when I look at the charts for 1989 to 2007, I find that only four of these eleven sacrifices are actually cancelled. They are

R1u+ G#8
M1u+ G#13
H0u+ G#18
T0u+ G#2

There must be another rule to explain this.
Charles has refused to state this rule.
I don't think he is aware of it, even though he observes it.

I have asserted that this rule is "a sacrifice is cancelled only if the tree calendar dates are ahead of the Gravesian Gregorian calendar tree dates" as stated above.

This is a very bold assertion. It can be refuted by a single counterexample.
If the rules for cancelling sacrifices were indeed as follows:

A sacrifice is cancelled if and only if
it's a u+ sacrifice in a tree month in which a u- sacrifice is not possible AND the tree-month is starting ahead of the corresponding GC Gravesian tree month.

Then the cancelled sacrifices for the nine 19-year cycles from 1894 to 2064 would be

1896-05-12 H1u+ G#7
1904-03-17 F0u+ G#15
1908-11-24 R0u+ G#19
1912-03-17 F1u+ G#4

1916-11-24 R1u+ G#8
1921-09-01 M1u+ G#13
1926-05-12 H0u+ G#18
1929-07-07 T0u+ G#2

1934-05-12 H1u+ G#7
1937-07-07 T1u+ G#10
1940-09-01 M1u+ G#13
1945-05-12 H0u+ G#18
1948-07-07 T0u+ G#2

1953-05-12 H1u+ G#7
1956-07-07 T1u+ G#10
1961-03-17 F0u+ G#15
1964-05-12 H0u+ G#18
1969-03-17 F1u+ G#4

1972-05-12 H1u+ G#7
1978-09-01 M1u+ G#13
1980-03-17 F0u+ G#15
1984-11-24 R0u+ G#19
1988-03-17 F1u+ G#4

1992-11-24 R1u+ G#8  (as in charts)
1997-09-01 M1u+ G#13 (as in charts)
2002-05-12 H0u+ G#18 (as in charts)
2005-07-07 T0u+ G#2  (as in charts)

2010-05-12 H1u+ G#7
2013-07-07 T1u+ G#10
2016-09-01 M1u+ G#13
2021-05-12 H0u+ G#18
2024-07-07 T0u+ G#2

2029-05-12 H1u+ G#7
2032-07-07 T1u+ G#10
2037-03-17 F0u+ G#15
2040-05-12 H0u+ G#18
2045-03-17 F1u+ G#4

2048-05-12 H1u+ G#7
2054-09-01 M1u+ G#13
2056-03-17 F0u+ G#15
2060-11-24 R0u+ G#19
2064-03-17 F1u+ G#4

If this were not completely correct, then either the complete statement of the rules for cancelling sacrifices that I gave would be incorrect or I have made an error in working out these cancelled sacrifices.

Karl

07(15(07
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar

Charles Moyer
In reply to this post by Palmen, KEV (Karl)
> From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> <[hidden email]>
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 15:37:04 -0000
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar
>
> Dear Charles and Calendar People
>
> CHARLES SAID:
> I suggest that Victor (and Karl) go back to the rules posted on Victor's own
> site, but once again to demonstrate that the adjustments I suggest there for
> the Ogam Wheel give correct results to solar and lunar alignments let me
> give a couple more examples.
>
> KARL SAYS: Those rules are not complete. Charles himself said that a caveat
> needs to be added to them. Has he added that Caveat?
> If no, I suggest he does so.

Of course I added that caveat in these discussions, and it is only important
anyway as a warning that there will be times during a 19 year period when
certain ordinarily sacrificed uruz will be out of range on the outer wheel
which will naturally constitute adjustment to the solar year.
>
>
> CHARLES SAID:
> And once again I state that if the Ogam Wheel requires rules which I am not
> aware of and consequently could not be using then it would be impossible for
> it to give such consistent results over any extended period.

Nonsense, because it DOES "give consistent results over an extended period".
Notice, folks, that Karl never questions the validity of my extended eclipse
reckoning with the OW, because he knows they are always correct.
>
> KARL SAYS: Charles could be consistently applying a rule of which he is not
> aware
> and so get consistent results. I tried to make him aware of the rule by asking
> him to operate the OW in a situation in which it would be impossible to
> observe this rule. Charles refused. He referred to this situation as a
> calendar vacuum.

But see what Karl has avoided from my last posting-
>
>
> CHARLES SAID IN AN EXAMPLE: ...you will be at new
> moon on F20 in Pos.#17. This is equivalent to GC April 6.
>
> KARL ASKS: How does Charles know that F20 of that year is equivalent to GC
> April 6?
Because both OW and GC give that date as a new moon confirmed by the fact
that it witnesses a solar eclipse. But Karl avoids and edits out of my
message my identification of this date with a certain number of days this
eclipse occurred before summer solstice. This demonstrates that the OW's
date of F20 is the same number of days from the SS as April 6 is in the GC
calendar. IOW the OW's solar calendar is as valid as the GC. Karl only has
me at a disadvantage because he knows that there is no other frame of
reference for the OW's date other than to compare it to the familiar GC
date. This does not constitute dependence of the OW upon the GC but
illustrates that the OW accomplishes the same function as the GC.
>
> KARL STATES: It is when the tree dates occur that is controversial and not
> which moon phase rune any tree date has.

But notice how silly this statement is. If the moon phase rune is correct
for every tree date, and the moon phase can not be wrong for any eclipse
dated by the correct GC date, then how can the OW's solar date be in
question?
>
> I have suggested that Charles works out the cancelled sacrifices in these two
> 19-year cycles (1894-1912) and (1970-1988) for comparison with each other.

And if I found any anomaly there 111 or 35 years ago then I would have to
wonder how the OW could work for 300 years, but I just gave Karl two
examples, one from 1894 and another from 1970 which demonstrated that the OW
correctly dated two separate solar eclipses recorded by GC and did this by
counting the correct number of days they occurred from the summer solstice.
Could it be that my OW is as competent a solstice calendar as Karl's
modified OW?

Charles
R14n+ (only 17 days to Simon's short stone, B2h-)
>
>
> Karl
>
> 07(15(07
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Charles OW Calendar and an OW Solstice Calendar

Charles Moyer
In reply to this post by Palmen, KEV (Karl)
> From: "Palmen, KEV (Karl)" <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> <[hidden email]>
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 15:41:50 -0000
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Charles OW Calendar and an OW Solstice Calendar
>
> Dear Charles and Calendar People
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Charles Moyer
> Sent: 06 December 2005 12:12
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: An Ogam Wheel Solstice Calendar
>
>
> CHARLES SAYS (first quoting me):
>> I disagree with Charles assertion that cancelled sacrifices naturally happen
>> just because of the position of the outer wheel in given golden # years. I
>> believe there is another rule in operation that causes only some of these
>> sacrifices to be cancelled and this rule involves the Gregorian calendar.
>> Also
>> the fact that leap days occur in different positions in different leap years
>> makes it more complicated in practice.
>
> Karl is telling me that I use some rule which I do not observe yet if
> one looks at the charts they show exactly what happens when a normally
> sacrificed uruz is out of range on the outer wheel.
>
> KARL MEANT: Charles uses and observes some rule that he denies the existence
> of. I give this in detail later in this note.

No Charles says on the contrary that Karl and others have overly complicated
the rules of uruz sacrifice by considering too many instances where such
sacrifice would not be questionable if one were to follow Charles' simple
rules.

>
>
> CHARLES CONTINUES (first quoting me)
>> The doubling of the extra days would preserve the integrity of the OW moon
>> phases, by ensuring that Birch 1 always occurs 3 days after the southern
>> solstice. Furthermore, both the neighbouring tree-months have sacrifices so
>> mitigating any short term effect of the doubled extra day on the moon phase.
>> Indeed I think that's why the tree-months (1,4,6,8,10,13) counting from Birch
>> with have sacrifices rather than the simpler (2,4,6,8,10,12).
>>
>>
>> CHARLES CONTINUES (first quoting me)
>>>
>>> When the extra day is doubled it is counted as one day by the Ogam wheel,
>>> then
>>> the Ogam wheel always counts 365 days in every year and so no sacrifices
>>> need
>>> be cancelled.
>> But with 13 months of 28 days + one intercalary day there is already 365
>> days except where the outer wheel gets adjusted by the moon. We do not want
>> the moon phase to wander off from the solar reckoning.
>>
>> KARL ASKS:
>> What does Charles mean by "except where the outer wheel gets adjusted by the
>> moon"?
>> What does Charles mean by "We do not want the moon phase to wander off from
>> the solar reckoning."?
>
> The moon phase must proceed each day so its sacrificed uruz adjust the outer
> wheel without getting out of lunar step. If there were any arbitrary
> adjustments to the lunar cycle to conform to a solar calendar then the lunar
> aspect of the lunisolar calendar would be compromised. I am not certain that
> Karl's proposed double count would not screw up the lunar count.
>
> KARL SAYS:
> The leap days have no effect at all on which tree calendar date has which moon
> phase rune. The leap days merely ensure that tree calendar dates are aligned
> well with the solstices, so that the OW will align the moon phases well with
> the moon phase runes.

Yes and doesn't this happen as I have demonstrated? See my previous posting
on counting OW eclipse dates from known solstice.

>
>
> CHARLES CONTINUES (first quoting me):
>> KARL CONCLUDES: I think Charles is right not to attempt to teach me to use
>> the
>> OW the way he does. This note suggests that his technical communication
>> skills
>> are not up to the job. Can any other calendar person answer my questions to
>> Charles?
>
> Karl first learned to use the Ogam Wheel the way I do but I have no idea why
> he wishes to obfuscate the simple working of the OW. It is obvious that he
> loves to tinker with other possibilities, but he makes it difficult for me
> to answer questions which have no satisfactory answers (for him) because
> they are designed to make it appear that I do not know how to operate my own
> calendar. It is disingenuous for Karl to ask if anyone else can answer the
> questions he puts to me because he knows he has the advantage on this list
> of being the only other one who has demonstrated that he knows how the OW
> works. Let's face it folk if Karl knew the OW did not work he would spend
> about as much time on it as he does on Derek's Genesis Calendar.
>
> KARL SAYS:
> I do know how the OW works and its NOT a calendar on it own.

This is Karl's opinion based on the disadvantage that the OW is not
understood by anyone else and so has no frame of reference of its own. I
suggest for everyone interested to ponder my examples of counting days from
the solstice to arrive at correct eclipse dates without reference to the GC
except for the confirmation of the eclipse date.
>
> I have learned to use the OW the way Charles does only through assuming an
> extra rule, whose existence is denied by Charles:

I have never denied the existence of any such rule. There may be one. I just
do not see the necessity of knowing it. And while it would be interesting to
see it stated regardless of how complex it may be it would not affect the
accuracy of the OW one way or another.
>
> "a sacrifice is cancelled only if the tree calendar dates are ahead of the
> Gravesian Gregorian tree calendar dates (which are clearly marked on the
> charts of 1989-2007)."
>
> Without such a rule I'd have been lost.

So is Karl saying that he isn't lost?

>
>
> Charles has stated some time ago a rule to the effect that a (u+) sacrifice is
> cancelled (so causing a leap day to occur) in a tree month for which a u-
> sacrifice is not possible . In each 19-year cycle there are ELEVEN sacrifices
> that would be cancelled according to that rule. They are
>
> H1u+ G#7
> R1u+ G#8
> B1u+ G#8/9
> T1u+ G#10
> M1u+ G#13
> F0u+ G#15
> H0u+ G#18
> R0u+ G#19
> B0u+ G#19/1
> T0u+ G#2
> F1u+ G#4
>
> However, when I look at the charts for 1989 to 2007, I find that only four of
> these eleven sacrifices are actually cancelled. They are
>
> R1u+ G#8
> M1u+ G#13
> H0u+ G#18
> T0u+ G#2
>
> There must be another rule to explain this.
> Charles has refused to state this rule.
> I don't think he is aware of it, even though he observes it.

>
> I have asserted that this rule is "a sacrifice is cancelled only if the tree
> calendar dates are ahead of the Gravesian Gregorian calendar tree dates" as
> stated above.
>
> This is a very bold assertion. It can be refuted by a single counterexample.
> If the rules for cancelling sacrifices were indeed as follows:
>
> A sacrifice is cancelled if and only if
> it's a u+ sacrifice in a tree month in which a u- sacrifice is not possible
> AND the tree-month is starting ahead of the corresponding GC Gravesian tree
> month.
>
> Then the cancelled sacrifices for the nine 19-year cycles from 1894 to 2064
> would be
>
> 1896-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 1904-03-17 F0u+ G#15
> 1908-11-24 R0u+ G#19
> 1912-03-17 F1u+ G#4
>
> 1916-11-24 R1u+ G#8
> 1921-09-01 M1u+ G#13
> 1926-05-12 H0u+ G#18
> 1929-07-07 T0u+ G#2
>
> 1934-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 1937-07-07 T1u+ G#10
> 1940-09-01 M1u+ G#13
> 1945-05-12 H0u+ G#18
> 1948-07-07 T0u+ G#2
>
> 1953-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 1956-07-07 T1u+ G#10
> 1961-03-17 F0u+ G#15
> 1964-05-12 H0u+ G#18
> 1969-03-17 F1u+ G#4
>
> 1972-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 1978-09-01 M1u+ G#13
> 1980-03-17 F0u+ G#15
> 1984-11-24 R0u+ G#19
> 1988-03-17 F1u+ G#4
>
> 1992-11-24 R1u+ G#8  (as in charts)
> 1997-09-01 M1u+ G#13 (as in charts)
> 2002-05-12 H0u+ G#18 (as in charts)
> 2005-07-07 T0u+ G#2  (as in charts)
>
> 2010-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 2013-07-07 T1u+ G#10
> 2016-09-01 M1u+ G#13
> 2021-05-12 H0u+ G#18
> 2024-07-07 T0u+ G#2
>
> 2029-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 2032-07-07 T1u+ G#10
> 2037-03-17 F0u+ G#15
> 2040-05-12 H0u+ G#18
> 2045-03-17 F1u+ G#4
>
> 2048-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 2054-09-01 M1u+ G#13
> 2056-03-17 F0u+ G#15
> 2060-11-24 R0u+ G#19
> 2064-03-17 F1u+ G#4
>
> If this were not completely correct, then either the complete statement of the
> rules for cancelling sacrifices that I gave would be incorrect or I have made
> an error in working out these cancelled sacrifices.

Karl may be right.

Charles
>
> Karl
>
> 07(15(07
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Charles OW Calendar and an OW Solstice Calendar

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

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Charles Moyer
Sent: 08 December 2005 12:10
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Charles OW Calendar and an OW Solstice Calendar

CHARLES SAID (first quoting me):
> I have learned to use the OW the way Charles does only through assuming an
> extra rule, whose existence is denied by Charles:

I have never denied the existence of any such rule. There may be one. I just
do not see the necessity of knowing it. And while it would be interesting to
see it stated regardless of how complex it may be it would not affect the
accuracy of the OW one way or another.

KARL SAYS:
Suppose Charles wants to teach someone else to use the OW exactly as Charles uses it. Suppose that person is not familiar with the Gregorian calendar. That person sees that there are 11 sacrifices in each 19-year cycle that may be saved to make a leap day, but knows that for accuracy only 4 or 5 of them should be saved. How is this person to know which 4 or 5 to save to get the exactly same dates that Charles gets?

Also, if Charles wants to claim that his OW calendar is independent of the Gregorian calendar, then he must show that ALL the rules are independent of the Gregorian calendar.


CHARLES CONTINUES (first quoting me):
> "a sacrifice is cancelled only if the tree calendar dates are ahead of the
> Gravesian Gregorian tree calendar dates (which are clearly marked on the
> charts of 1989-2007)."
>
> Without such a rule I'd have been lost.

So is Karl saying that he isn't lost?
KARL: By (and only by) observing that rule was I not lost.

>
>
> Charles has stated some time ago a rule to the effect that a (u+) sacrifice is
> cancelled (so causing a leap day to occur) in a tree month for which a u-
> sacrifice is not possible . In each 19-year cycle there are ELEVEN sacrifices
> that would be cancelled according to that rule. They are
>
> H1u+ G#7
> R1u+ G#8
> B1u+ G#8/9
> T1u+ G#10
> M1u+ G#13
> F0u+ G#15
> H0u+ G#18
> R0u+ G#19
> B0u+ G#19/1
> T0u+ G#2
> F1u+ G#4
>
> However, when I look at the charts for 1989 to 2007, I find that only four of
> these eleven sacrifices are actually cancelled. They are
>
> R1u+ G#8
> M1u+ G#13
> H0u+ G#18
> T0u+ G#2
>
> There must be another rule to explain this.
> Charles has refused to state this rule.
> I don't think he is aware of it, even though he observes it.

>
> I have asserted that this rule is "a sacrifice is cancelled only if the tree
> calendar dates are ahead of the Gravesian Gregorian calendar tree dates" as
> stated above.
>
> This is a very bold assertion. It can be refuted by a single counterexample.
> If the rules for cancelling sacrifices were indeed as follows:
>
> A sacrifice is cancelled if and only if
> it's a u+ sacrifice in a tree month in which a u- sacrifice is not possible
> AND the tree-month is starting ahead of the corresponding GC Gravesian tree
> month.
>
> Then the cancelled sacrifices for the nine 19-year cycles from 1894 to 2064
> would be
>
> 1896-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 1904-03-17 F0u+ G#15
> 1908-11-24 R0u+ G#19
> 1912-03-17 F1u+ G#4
>
> 1916-11-24 R1u+ G#8
> 1921-09-01 M1u+ G#13
> 1926-05-12 H0u+ G#18
> 1929-07-07 T0u+ G#2
>
> 1934-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 1937-07-07 T1u+ G#10
> 1940-09-01 M1u+ G#13
> 1945-05-12 H0u+ G#18
> 1948-07-07 T0u+ G#2
>
> 1953-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 1956-07-07 T1u+ G#10
> 1961-03-17 F0u+ G#15
> 1964-05-12 H0u+ G#18
> 1969-03-17 F1u+ G#4
>
> 1972-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 1978-09-01 M1u+ G#13
> 1980-03-17 F0u+ G#15
> 1984-11-24 R0u+ G#19
> 1988-03-17 F1u+ G#4
>
> 1992-11-24 R1u+ G#8  (as in charts)
> 1997-09-01 M1u+ G#13 (as in charts)
> 2002-05-12 H0u+ G#18 (as in charts)
> 2005-07-07 T0u+ G#2  (as in charts)
>
> 2010-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 2013-07-07 T1u+ G#10
> 2016-09-01 M1u+ G#13
> 2021-05-12 H0u+ G#18
> 2024-07-07 T0u+ G#2
>
> 2029-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 2032-07-07 T1u+ G#10
> 2037-03-17 F0u+ G#15
> 2040-05-12 H0u+ G#18
> 2045-03-17 F1u+ G#4
>
> 2048-05-12 H1u+ G#7
> 2054-09-01 M1u+ G#13
> 2056-03-17 F0u+ G#15
> 2060-11-24 R0u+ G#19
> 2064-03-17 F1u+ G#4
>
> If this were not completely correct, then either the complete statement of the
> rules for cancelling sacrifices that I gave would be incorrect or I have made
> an error in working out these cancelled sacrifices.

Karl may be right.

KARL SUGGESTS:
How about checking out the solar eclipse of 29 March 1903 01:35 UT and the solstices of 22 June 1903 15:05 UT and 23 December 1903 00:20 UT?

Karl

07(15(08
Loading...