Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

john
This email originated from outside ECU.


Hello folks, Having just lived through the worst bushfire catastrophe in history, my mind has focused on the question: what role should a calendar play in educating people about extreme weather events, which are far more important than the placement of holidays or leap days. Climate change is real and it will continue unless, and maybe even if, humans pay a lot more attention to the natural world around us. Blackfellas have inhabited my country, Australia, for at least 60,000 years. Only now after this shock with rivers running dry, have the politicians reluctantly begun to pay attention to the aboriginal culture, which looks upon the land and its creatures as the resting place of their ancestors and a nursery for their children. White fellas need to adopt a whole new attitude. They need a relevant calendar to show the way.
John Regan

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of CALNDR-L automatic digest system
Sent: Friday, 7 February 2020 3:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

There are 10 messages totaling 3852 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Michaelmas dates (2)
  2. Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar (4)
  3. 13520.11.18 - Re: Weekend Rest Calendar
  4. 13520.11.18 - Re: Michaelmas dates
  5. 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar (2)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 5 Feb 2020 22:53:50 -0800
From:    David Peterson <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Michaelmas dates

This email originated from outside ECU.

Victor:

In my own Scandinavian family research, I have found that you cannot assume that the christening record is absolutely chronological. For the most part, it is chronological, but there are always exceptions. I have certainly encountered scenarios where the child's christening (which may have been one done at home and reported later) is entered at a later position in the book. I can guess at various other reasons for this, but it possible that you are seeing such a situation and later entry.

David Peterson



On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 4:38 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Calendar people,

Today I've been spending some time working on my family tree in a particular family. It seems there are two people named Sissela, daughter of Svend Spidsøen, born a bit more than a year apart. In fact the gap between them is about the same as the gap between my older brother and me, so it's possible for them to be sisters.

In Norway, it is common practice to name children after ancestors or deceased spouses or children. So an idea I had was that the first one born died before the second one was born. But I couldn't find a death record in the range between the two births (actually birth dates are not recorded - only baptism dates).

In any case, one of the girls was baptized 14 Jun 1766. The other was born on Fes. Michaelis 1767. There was a feast day reduction act in Norway in 1770 that eliminated this feast, which encyclopedias give as 29 September or the nearest Sunday. I see wikipedia also gives 10 or 11 October for Old Michelmas.

The problem is that the parish record is a chronological record, so entries are exected to be in chronological order. The entry prior to this one is dated 20 October.

That leads to my question: is there any scenario were Michaelmas comes after 20 October in 1767 in Norway?

Victor

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:14:57 +0000
From:    "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Michael and Calendar People


The offset I suggest is the same for every year. It removes the preference given to the start of the first month.


The important point is that the total error is equal to the year start error + the year structure error. The two are independent for any calendar where every month has a constant length except for the last month. The two errors can be minimised independently. This is what I do with the year structure error.


To prevent the offset from increasing the total error an equal and opposite offset needs to be applied to the year start rule.


Karl


Thursday Beta February 2020



------ Original Message ------
From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 Feb, 2020 At 19:14
Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.

Yes, it's true that my Ecliptic-MonthsCalendar favors the first month-start's ecliptic-accuracy, and will often or usually acquire error later in the year. ...whereas one could add a constant that would minimize the mean or root-mean-square ecliptic-error for the whole year.

But that constant would have to be different fro each year, and I don't know if that would be acceptable, because it would greatly complicate the yearstart rule.

7 W
Aquarius 17th
Februarius 5th, 2020

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:27 AM [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Michael and Calendar People


Michael said


"Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my proposal."


I have thought more about this and indeed my proposal is best for a year that begins exactly on the March equinox or whenever the first ecliptic-month begins. I realised what my idea does, is to separate the year start error from the year structure error and minimises that latter. In a calendar, where every month has a constant length, except the last month which may have a leap day, the year start errors of the years and year structure errors of the months are independent of each other. So to get the minimum error one can minimise the year start error and year structure error separately.


The main drawback of my method is that it produces irregular month lengths. However it does also provide a method of evaluating the year structure errors for more regular month lengths, regardless of what method is used to produce them.


Michael's reply has led me to consider a refinement of my method. This is to add a small constant, which I call the offset to the year structure errors. The year start rule can then be adjusted by this offset, so the total error is not increased by the offset. The effect of this refinement is to improve the accuracy of the month starts of the 2nd, 3rd to 12th months at the expense of the 1st, which gets preferential treatment without the refinement.


I may deal with this refinement in more detail in a later note. Also if I do so, I may change the signs of the error figures to indicate how much a month begins before the corresponding ecliptic-month. Then the errors fit into Michael's concept of displacement, which is effectively the number of days owed by the calendar and paid by adding a day or week to a month or year.


Karl


Wednesday Beta February 2020


------ Original Message ------
From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 Feb, 2020 At 19:16
Subject: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.


I' ordinarily reply to the thread in which the comment was made, but I can't find it, because the comment that I'm replying to was evidently posted to the wrong thread.

Karl--in support of his suggestion to choose an ecliptic-month calendar's month-lengths by choosing its month-start dates by getting as close as possible to the actual astronomical ecliptic-month-start (trropical-sign-entry) dates of some particular year--spoke of my proposal having a "weakeness" because it wasn't derived in that manner.

Well, then evidently the Indian National Calendar shares that same "weakness", because my month-lengths are identical to its month-lengths, except that I move the extra day and the leapday to the last month of the year. So, fo Karl, the designers of the Indian National Calendar, too, were wrong and Karl is right.

Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my propsal.

As I've already explained twice, the stable and un-arbitrary to choose the month-lengths is to directly determine and use the astronomical ecliptic month-lengths, as I did, and as the Indian National Calendar does.

Karl has again exhibted his habitual tendency to prematurely and sloppily shoot his mouth off to say that someone else is wrong.

7 Tu
Aquarius 16th
Februarius 4th, 2020



------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:27:19 +0000
From:    Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]>
Subject: 13520.11.18 - Re: Weekend Rest Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.


18♒20 UCC

Hi Walter

Can you share a link to your Olympiad Calendar please? I am collecting all the calendars created by people on this list into bookmarks for ease of reference

Thanks

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com<http://www.universalcelestialcalendar.com>

On 2/1/20 9:14 PM, Walter J Ziobro wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.


Dear Karl

A similar result can be obtained by organizing my Olympiad Calendar into Pentiads and Hexiads of year groups 6-5 and 6-5-6

WalterZiobro


________________________________
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 k.palmen <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

This email originated from outside ECU.


Dear Calendar People


I have previously posted to this list the idea of a Calendar, inspired by a calendar that normally displays one day per page but puts both weekend days on the same page. This calendar has 'dates' that consist of either one weekday or a whole weekend. Then we can have 12 months each of 26 'dates', except the last month, which has 27 dates in a common year and 28 dates in a leap year. Then leap years need occur only once every 15 or 16 year, because a common year starting on Saturday has 53 weekends and so 366 days.


Now I explore the idea further and come up with a calendar to use. I found that the calendar is simpler if the leap years occur in intervals of 11 and 17 years, rather than 15 and 16 years, because every leap year then begins on the same day of the week. This also means we can avoid leap years that begin on a Friday or Saturday, which have 367 days. Also we can avoid leap years that begin on a Monday or Thursday, which occur next another 366-day year. So I choose leap years to begin on Wednesday.


The simplest accurate cycle is the 62-year cycle with 4 leap year (17+17+17+11). I choose the Rata Die epoch of Monday 1 January 1 CE in the Proleptic Gregorian calendar and leap years on the 3rd, 20th, 37th & 54th years of the 62-year cycle. Then the years of the 62-year cycle begin thus:


Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

01 02 03 -- 04 05

06 07 08 09 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 -- 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34

35 36 37 -- 38 39

40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54 -- 55 56

57 58 59 60 61 62


This year 2020 is the 36th year of a 62-year cycle (2020 - (32*62) = 36) and begins on a Tuesday and therefore on Tuesday 31 December 2019. Today is the 33rd day of that year so the 29th 'date', making it Saturday, date 3 of Month 2. Tomorrow will be Sunday, date 3 of Month 2 Year 2020 and the following day Monday, date 4 of Month 2, with 'Monday' optional ('Saturday' & 'Sunday' not optional).


I call it the Weekend Rest Calendar, because the calendar takes a rest at the weekend. It is not a serious calendar reform proposal, but something to explore.


Karl


Saturday, 3 Month 2, Year 2020


Saturday Alpha February 2020

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:53:13 +0000
From:    "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Michael and Calendar People


Here I show the weakness of Michael's method in its full glory unmitigated by the early leap day of the Indian National Calendar. Both the extra day and leap day are added to the last month. I reverse the signs to make the errors more like displacements.


The year structure errors shown in hours are how long each month begins before the corresponding ecliptic month for a year that begins on the March equinox, whose year start error is zero.


00 17 10 18 29 36

34 44 41 30 35 44


The range is 00 to 44. The first 7 months are 44 hours shorter than the first 7 ecliptic months and this also applies it the first 11 months. This means every year has a total error of magnitude of at least 22 hours for at least one month. This applies regardless of the choice of year start rule.


I have found that the choice of which month the extra day is added to, makes a big difference. If it were placed in the first 7 months, that difference of 44 hours would be reduced to 20 hours and if Cancer is chosen for the extra day we get:


00 +17 +10 +18 +05 +12

+10 +20 +17 +06 +11 +20


If an offset of -10 hours (10 hours earlier) is applied, we get:


-10 +07 00 +08 -05 +02

00 +10 +07 -04 +01 +10


which are all less than 12 hours, so would be got by my method with and offset of 10 hours earlier (also 9 or 11 hours would produce the same month lengths), which I showed in an earlier note.


This would work best if the year start rule places the new year an average 10 hours before the equinox.


The month lengths are

30 31 31 32 31 31

30 30 30 29 30 30


I thought about when the best time to place the extra day and its when the month length is rounded down and is close to being rounded up and the same applies to nearby months. This is when the rounding error accumulates the fastest.


Karl


Thursday Beta February 2020



------ Original Message ------
From: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
To: "East Carolina University Calendar discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 11:14
Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Dear Michael and Calendar People


The offset I suggest is the same for every year. It removes the preference given to the start of the first month.


The important point is that the total error is equal to the year start error + the year structure error. The two are independent for any calendar where every month has a constant length except for the last month. The two errors can be minimised independently. This is what I do with the year structure error.


To prevent the offset from increasing the total error an equal and opposite offset needs to be applied to the year start rule.


Karl


Thursday Beta February 2020



------ Original Message ------
From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 Feb, 2020 At 19:14
Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.

Yes, it's true that my Ecliptic-MonthsCalendar favors the first month-start's ecliptic-accuracy, and will often or usually acquire error later in the year. ...whereas one could add a constant that would minimize the mean or root-mean-square ecliptic-error for the whole year.

But that constant would have to be different fro each year, and I don't know if that would be acceptable, because it would greatly complicate the yearstart rule.

7 W
Aquarius 17th
Februarius 5th, 2020

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:27 AM [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Michael and Calendar People


Michael said


"Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my proposal."


I have thought more about this and indeed my proposal is best for a year that begins exactly on the March equinox or whenever the first ecliptic-month begins. I realised what my idea does, is to separate the year start error from the year structure error and minimises that latter. In a calendar, where every month has a constant length, except the last month which may have a leap day, the year start errors of the years and year structure errors of the months are independent of each other. So to get the minimum error one can minimise the year start error and year structure error separately.


The main drawback of my method is that it produces irregular month lengths. However it does also provide a method of evaluating the year structure errors for more regular month lengths, regardless of what method is used to produce them.


Michael's reply has led me to consider a refinement of my method. This is to add a small constant, which I call the offset to the year structure errors. The year start rule can then be adjusted by this offset, so the total error is not increased by the offset. The effect of this refinement is to improve the accuracy of the month starts of the 2nd, 3rd to 12th months at the expense of the 1st, which gets preferential treatment without the refinement.


I may deal with this refinement in more detail in a later note. Also if I do so, I may change the signs of the error figures to indicate how much a month begins before the corresponding ecliptic-month. Then the errors fit into Michael's concept of displacement, which is effectively the number of days owed by the calendar and paid by adding a day or week to a month or year.


Karl


Wednesday Beta February 2020


------ Original Message ------
From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 Feb, 2020 At 19:16
Subject: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.


I' ordinarily reply to the thread in which the comment was made, but I can't find it, because the comment that I'm replying to was evidently posted to the wrong thread.

Karl--in support of his suggestion to choose an ecliptic-month calendar's month-lengths by choosing its month-start dates by getting as close as possible to the actual astronomical ecliptic-month-start (trropical-sign-entry) dates of some particular year--spoke of my proposal having a "weakeness" because it wasn't derived in that manner.

Well, then evidently the Indian National Calendar shares that same "weakness", because my month-lengths are identical to its month-lengths, except that I move the extra day and the leapday to the last month of the year. So, fo Karl, the designers of the Indian National Calendar, too, were wrong and Karl is right.

Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my propsal.

As I've already explained twice, the stable and un-arbitrary to choose the month-lengths is to directly determine and use the astronomical ecliptic month-lengths, as I did, and as the Indian National Calendar does.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:44:41 -0600
From:    Victor Engel <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Michaelmas dates

This email originated from outside ECU.

I thought of that. Usually it happens when the baptism happens at home and is later blessed by the priest when he makes his rounds.

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:53 AM David Peterson <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Victor:

In my own Scandinavian family research, I have found that you cannot assume that the christening record is absolutely chronological. For the most part, it is chronological, but there are always exceptions. I have certainly encountered scenarios where the child's christening (which may have been one done at home and reported later) is entered at a later position in the book. I can guess at various other reasons for this, but it possible that you are seeing such a situation and later entry.

David Peterson



On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 4:38 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Calendar people,

Today I've been spending some time working on my family tree in a particular family. It seems there are two people named Sissela, daughter of Svend Spidsøen, born a bit more than a year apart. In fact the gap between them is about the same as the gap between my older brother and me, so it's possible for them to be sisters.

In Norway, it is common practice to name children after ancestors or deceased spouses or children. So an idea I had was that the first one born died before the second one was born. But I couldn't find a death record in the range between the two births (actually birth dates are not recorded - only baptism dates).

In any case, one of the girls was baptized 14 Jun 1766. The other was born on Fes. Michaelis 1767. There was a feast day reduction act in Norway in 1770 that eliminated this feast, which encyclopedias give as 29 September or the nearest Sunday. I see wikipedia also gives 10 or 11 October for Old Michelmas.

The problem is that the parish record is a chronological record, so entries are exected to be in chronological order. The entry prior to this one is dated 20 October.

That leads to my question: is there any scenario were Michaelmas comes after 20 October in 1767 in Norway?

Victor

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:05:07 +0000
From:    Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]>
Subject: 13520.11.18 - Re: Michaelmas dates

This email originated from outside ECU.


18 Aquarius♒ 13520 UCC

Dear Walter, Michael and calendar people

Yes, I agreed. As far as I could tell from my research all the ancient Quarter and Cross Quarter day festivals were "hijacked" by religion for their own purposes.

There were 8 "Fire Festivals" in the ancient Celtic Druidic year which took place on the nearest full moon to the Season starts and Mid Season points, at the Equinoxes & Solstices and at the mid points between them. It's known as "The Eight Fold Year" and it was one of my first inspirations for creating the UCC, having read about it in a book about "Bards, Ovates & Druids". I have these 8 festivals in the UCC at their appropriate places in the Triad Months and the Zodiac.

We have just passed the Mid Season Festival of Aquarius♒, which is at the middle of the middle Triad Month of the last Quarter Season (Quarter 4) of the Year. There is a page about this on the UCC Website here:

https://universalcelestialcalendar.com/festivals-8-midseasonQ4.htm

This time is known as "Imbolc" in the 'pagan' system and celebrates the ending of northern Winter and the coming of northern Spring. It is also the time of "Groundhog Day" in the northern US as I'm sure you are all aware!

I have some more info about this aspect of the calendar on the UCC Wiki Page here:

https://universalcelestialcalendar.com/Universal%20Community%20Calendar%20Wiki.backup.html#Eight_Seasonal_Festivals

https://universalcelestialcalendar.com/Universal%20Community%20Calendar%20Wiki.backup.html#More_About_Festivals

I am currently in Portugal, where they celebrate many of these times as Saints Days from the Roman Catholic system as Walter has pointed out, with "Sao Joao" (Saint John) at the Nolstice/Cancer♋ Solstice being one of their major annual celebrations, as it also is in many Celtic parts of northern Spain such as Galicia

Regards

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com<http://www.universalcelestialcalendar.com>

On 2/6/20 4:14 AM, Walter J Ziobro wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.


Dear Michael

IMO you are correct The Church appropriated pagan celebrations of both seasonal and quarter dates and Christianized them

We have Christmas near the south solstice And Easter near the northward equinox But also John the Baptist at the north solstice and Michaelmass near the southward equinox

But we also have quarter days that have been Chritianized Candlemas in February, Mayday, Lammas, feast of the Transfiguration in August, and All Saints Day in November

WalterZiobro


________________________________
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

This email originated from outside ECU.

Speaking of church-holidays, I've heard that Saint Briget's Day (Februarius 1st) is at a time that was anciently a celebration of the pre-Roman Celtic goddess Brigde.    ...and that her name and (approximate) day were appropriated by the church.

I'd previously heard that of course that was the case with the pre-Roman Yule, but I didn't know that that was done with other pre-Roman seasonal-observances.

7 W
Aquarius 17th
Februarius 5th

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:38 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Calendar people,

Today I've been spending some time working on my family tree in a particular family. It seems there are two people named Sissela, daughter of Svend Spidsøen, born a bit more than a year apart. In fact the gap between them is about the same as the gap between my older brother and me, so it's possible for them to be sisters.

In Norway, it is common practice to name children after ancestors or deceased spouses or children. So an idea I had was that the first one born died before the second one was born. But I couldn't find a death record in the range between the two births (actually birth dates are not recorded - only baptism dates).

In any case, one of the girls was baptized 14 Jun 1766. The other was born on Fes. Michaelis 1767. There was a feast day reduction act in Norway in 1770 that eliminated this feast, which encyclopedias give as 29 September or the nearest Sunday. I see wikipedia also gives 10 or 11 October for Old Michelmas.

The problem is that the parish record is a chronological record, so entries are exected to be in chronological order. The entry prior to this one is dated 20 October.

That leads to my question: is there any scenario were Michaelmas comes after 20 October in 1767 in Norway?

Victor

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:07:08 +0000
From:    Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]>
Subject: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.


18♒20 UCC


Dear Karl


Please could you share a link to your latest calendar? (Once one is available)


Thanks


Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com<http://www.universalcelestialcalendar.com>

On 2/6/20 11:14 AM, [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Michael and Calendar People


The offset I suggest is the same for every year. It removes the preference given to the start of the first month.


The important point is that the total error is equal to the year start error + the year structure error. The two are independent for any calendar where every month has a constant length except for the last month. The two errors can be minimised independently. This is what I do with the year structure error.


To prevent the offset from increasing the total error an equal and opposite offset needs to be applied to the year start rule.


Karl


Thursday Beta February 2020

------ Original Message ------ From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, 5 Feb, 2020 At 19:14 Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
This email originated from outside ECU.
Yes, it's true that my Ecliptic-MonthsCalendar favors the first month-start's ecliptic-accuracy, and will often or usually acquire error later in the year. ...whereas one could add a constant that would minimize the mean or root-mean-square ecliptic-error for the whole year.
But that constant would have to be different fro each year, and I don't know if that would be acceptable, because it would greatly complicate the yearstart rule.
7 W
Aquarius 17th
Februarius 5th, 2020
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:27 AM [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.
Dear Michael and Calendar People

Michael said

"Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my proposal."

I have thought more about this and indeed my proposal is best for a year that begins exactly on the March equinox or whenever the first ecliptic-month begins. I realised what my idea does, is to separate the year start error from the year structure error and minimises that latter. In a calendar, where every month has a constant length, except the last month which may have a leap day, the year start errors of the years and year structure errors of the months are independent of each other. So to get the minimum error one can minimise the year start error and year structure error separately.

The main drawback of my method is that it produces irregular month lengths. However it does also provide a method of evaluating the year structure errors for more regular month lengths, regardless of what method is used to produce them.

Michael's reply has led me to consider a refinement of my method. This is to add a small constant, which I call the offset to the year structure errors. The year start rule can then be adjusted by this offset, so the total error is not increased by the offset. The effect of this refinement is to improve the accuracy of the month starts of the 2nd, 3rd to 12th months at the expense of the 1st, which gets preferential treatment without the refinement.

I may deal with this refinement in more detail in a later note. Also if I do so, I may change the signs of the error figures to indicate how much a month begins before the corresponding ecliptic-month. Then the errors fit into Michael's concept of displacement, which is effectively the number of days owed by the calendar and paid by adding a day or week to a month or year.

Karl

Wednesday Beta February 2020

------ Original Message ------ From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: Tuesday, 4 Feb, 2020 At 19:16 Subject: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
This email originated from outside ECU.
I' ordinarily reply to the thread in which the comment was made, but I can't find it, because the comment that I'm replying to was evidently posted to the wrong thread.
Karl--in support of his suggestion to choose an ecliptic-month calendar's month-lengths by choosing its month-start dates by getting as close as possible to the actual astronomical ecliptic-month-start (trropical-sign-entry) dates of some particular year--spoke of my proposal having a "weakeness" because it wasn't derived in that manner.
Well, then evidently the Indian National Calendar shares that same "weakness", because my month-lengths are identical to its month-lengths, except that I move the extra day and the leapday to the last month of the year. So, fo Karl, the designers of the Indian National Calendar, too, were wrong and Karl is right.
Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my propsal.
As I've already explained twice, the stable and un-arbitrary to choose the month-lengths is to directly determine and use the astronomical ecliptic month-lengths, as I did, and as the Indian National Calendar does.
Karl has again exhibted his habitual tendency to prematurely and sloppily shoot his mouth off to say that someone else is wrong.
7 Tu
Aquarius 16th
Februarius 4th, 2020

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:15:44 +0000
From:    Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]>
Subject: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.


18/11/20 UCC


Dear Karl


You said


"...The year structure errors shown in hours are how long each month begins before the corresponding ecliptic month for a year that begins on the March equinox, whose year start error is zero..."


Does this allow for the approximately 6 hour difference in the time of the occurrence of the Aries♈Equinox from year to year (until the 'reset' of a leap day). If the year begins on the equinox are you then starting it from midnight on that day?


Just want to make sure I understand you correctly


Regards


Litmus


-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com<http://www.universalcelestialcalendar.com>

On 2/6/20 12:53 PM, [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Michael and Calendar People


Here I show the weakness of Michael's method in its full glory unmitigated by the early leap day of the Indian National Calendar. Both the extra day and leap day are added to the last month. I reverse the signs to make the errors more like displacements.


The year structure errors shown in hours are how long each month begins before the corresponding ecliptic month for a year that begins on the March equinox, whose year start error is zero.


00 17 10 18 29 36

34 44 41 30 35 44


The range is 00 to 44. The first 7 months are 44 hours shorter than the first 7 ecliptic months and this also applies it the first 11 months. This means every year has a total error of magnitude of at least 22 hours for at least one month. This applies regardless of the choice of year start rule.


I have found that the choice of which month the extra day is added to, makes a big difference. If it were placed in the first 7 months, that difference of 44 hours would be reduced to 20 hours and if Cancer is chosen for the extra day we get:


00 +17 +10 +18 +05 +12

+10 +20 +17 +06 +11 +20


If an offset of -10 hours (10 hours earlier) is applied, we get:


-10 +07 00 +08 -05 +02

00 +10 +07 -04 +01 +10


which are all less than 12 hours, so would be got by my method with and offset of 10 hours earlier (also 9 or 11 hours would produce the same month lengths), which I showed in an earlier note.


This would work best if the year start rule places the new year an average 10 hours before the equinox.


The month lengths are

30 31 31 32 31 31

30 30 30 29 30 30


I thought about when the best time to place the extra day and its when the month length is rounded down and is close to being rounded up and the same applies to nearby months. This is when the rounding error accumulates the fastest.


Karl


Thursday Beta February 2020

------ Original Message ------ From: "[hidden email]"<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> To: "East Carolina University Calendar discussion List" <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 11:14 Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
Dear Michael and Calendar People

The offset I suggest is the same for every year. It removes the preference given to the start of the first month.

The important point is that the total error is equal to the year start error + the year structure error. The two are independent for any calendar where every month has a constant length except for the last month. The two errors can be minimised independently. This is what I do with the year structure error.

To prevent the offset from increasing the total error an equal and opposite offset needs to be applied to the year start rule.

Karl

Thursday Beta February 2020

------ Original Message ------ From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, 5 Feb, 2020 At 19:14 Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
This email originated from outside ECU.
Yes, it's true that my Ecliptic-MonthsCalendar favors the first month-start's ecliptic-accuracy, and will often or usually acquire error later in the year. ...whereas one could add a constant that would minimize the mean or root-mean-square ecliptic-error for the whole year.
But that constant would have to be different fro each year, and I don't know if that would be acceptable, because it would greatly complicate the yearstart rule.
7 W
Aquarius 17th
Februarius 5th, 2020
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:27 AM [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.
Dear Michael and Calendar People

Michael said

"Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my proposal."

I have thought more about this and indeed my proposal is best for a year that begins exactly on the March equinox or whenever the first ecliptic-month begins. I realised what my idea does, is to separate the year start error from the year structure error and minimises that latter. In a calendar, where every month has a constant length, except the last month which may have a leap day, the year start errors of the years and year structure errors of the months are independent of each other. So to get the minimum error one can minimise the year start error and year structure error separately.

The main drawback of my method is that it produces irregular month lengths. However it does also provide a method of evaluating the year structure errors for more regular month lengths, regardless of what method is used to produce them.

Michael's reply has led me to consider a refinement of my method. This is to add a small constant, which I call the offset to the year structure errors. The year start rule can then be adjusted by this offset, so the total error is not increased by the offset. The effect of this refinement is to improve the accuracy of the month starts of the 2nd, 3rd to 12th months at the expense of the 1st, which gets preferential treatment without the refinement.

I may deal with this refinement in more detail in a later note. Also if I do so, I may change the signs of the error figures to indicate how much a month begins before the corresponding ecliptic-month. Then the errors fit into Michael's concept of displacement, which is effectively the number of days owed by the calendar and paid by adding a day or week to a month or year.

Karl

Wednesday Beta February 2020

------ Original Message ------ From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: Tuesday, 4 Feb, 2020 At 19:16 Subject: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
This email originated from outside ECU.
I' ordinarily reply to the thread in which the comment was made, but I can't find it, because the comment that I'm replying to was evidently posted to the wrong thread.
Karl--in support of his suggestion to choose an ecliptic-month calendar's month-lengths by choosing its month-start dates by getting as close as possible to the actual astronomical ecliptic-month-start (trropical-sign-entry) dates of some particular year--spoke of my proposal having a "weakeness" because it wasn't derived in that manner.
Well, then evidently the Indian National Calendar shares that same "weakness", because my month-lengths are identical to its month-lengths, except that I move the extra day and the leapday to the last month of the year. So, fo Karl, the designers of the Indian National Calendar, too, were wrong and Karl is right.
Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my propsal.
As I've already explained twice, the stable and un-arbitrary to choose the month-lengths is to directly determine and use the astronomical ecliptic month-lengths, as I did, and as the Indian National Calendar does.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:17:17 +0000
From:    "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Michael and Calendar People


Michael has criticised my method as being unstable. I have taken stability to mean that each month besides the month that takes the leap day is the same length year to year. If Michael means something else by stability, he needs to explain it carefully.


I let you know what my method is not. Take the start times of the ecliptic-months from the start of the calendar year, round them and take the month lengths from the differences. This method is the most accurate possible. The figures rounded change from year to year and so do the month lengths.


I found a way of modifying this so the month lengths do not change from year to year, except for the last month, which takes the leap day. It is the same as the previous method, but the start of the calendar year is changed to the start of the first ecliptic-month (March equinox). This method is less accurate, because of the constraint of constant month lengths. The error reckoned by my method is just part of the error and the only part that changes during the year. The other part is the error that arises from the timing of the start of the year and is the same for all months of the year. This other part also the error added because each month has the same length from year to year, except for the leap day.


Karl


Thursday Beta February 2020



------ Original Message ------
From: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
To: "East Carolina University Calendar discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 11:14
Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Dear Michael and Calendar People


The offset I suggest is the same for every year. It removes the preference given to the start of the first month.


The important point is that the total error is equal to the year start error + the year structure error. The two are independent for any calendar where every month has a constant length except for the last month. The two errors can be minimised independently. This is what I do with the year structure error.


To prevent the offset from increasing the total error an equal and opposite offset needs to be applied to the year start rule.


Karl


Thursday Beta February 2020



------ Original Message ------
From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 Feb, 2020 At 19:14
Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.

Yes, it's true that my Ecliptic-MonthsCalendar favors the first month-start's ecliptic-accuracy, and will often or usually acquire error later in the year. ...whereas one could add a constant that would minimize the mean or root-mean-square ecliptic-error for the whole year.

But that constant would have to be different fro each year, and I don't know if that would be acceptable, because it would greatly complicate the yearstart rule.

7 W
Aquarius 17th
Februarius 5th, 2020

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:27 AM [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Michael and Calendar People


Michael said


"Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my proposal."


I have thought more about this and indeed my proposal is best for a year that begins exactly on the March equinox or whenever the first ecliptic-month begins. I realised what my idea does, is to separate the year start error from the year structure error and minimises that latter. In a calendar, where every month has a constant length, except the last month which may have a leap day, the year start errors of the years and year structure errors of the months are independent of each other. So to get the minimum error one can minimise the year start error and year structure error separately.


The main drawback of my method is that it produces irregular month lengths. However it does also provide a method of evaluating the year structure errors for more regular month lengths, regardless of what method is used to produce them.


Michael's reply has led me to consider a refinement of my method. This is to add a small constant, which I call the offset to the year structure errors. The year start rule can then be adjusted by this offset, so the total error is not increased by the offset. The effect of this refinement is to improve the accuracy of the month starts of the 2nd, 3rd to 12th months at the expense of the 1st, which gets preferential treatment without the refinement.


I may deal with this refinement in more detail in a later note. Also if I do so, I may change the signs of the error figures to indicate how much a month begins before the corresponding ecliptic-month. Then the errors fit into Michael's concept of displacement, which is effectively the number of days owed by the calendar and paid by adding a day or week to a month or year.


Karl


Wednesday Beta February 2020


------ Original Message ------
From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 Feb, 2020 At 19:16
Subject: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.


I' ordinarily reply to the thread in which the comment was made, but I can't find it, because the comment that I'm replying to was evidently posted to the wrong thread.

Karl--in support of his suggestion to choose an ecliptic-month calendar's month-lengths by choosing its month-start dates by getting as close as possible to the actual astronomical ecliptic-month-start (trropical-sign-entry) dates of some particular year--spoke of my proposal having a "weakeness" because it wasn't derived in that manner.

Well, then evidently the Indian National Calendar shares that same "weakness", because my month-lengths are identical to its month-lengths, except that I move the extra day and the leapday to the last month of the year. So, fo Karl, the designers of the Indian National Calendar, too, were wrong and Karl is right.

Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my propsal.

As I've already explained twice, the stable and un-arbitrary to choose the month-lengths is to directly determine and use the astronomical ecliptic month-lengths, as I did, and as the Indian National Calendar does.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:28:07 -0500
From:    Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

This email originated from outside ECU.

Karl--
.
To compare the max-error and av error of the proposals, it would be necessary to have the specific details about the offsets.
.
But there's good reason to make yearstart as close as possible to the South-Solstice:  For the cold parts of the world, most of which and coldest of which (not counting uninhabited Antarctica), are north of the Equator, the South-Solstice is perceived as a significant and important beginning, when the Earth and nature start returning to life.
.
That's the awaited and anticipated ecliptic-point, in the cold North.
.
For the Fall-Winter astronomical-quarter, equinox to solstice, the duration to the Winter-Solstice upturn-beginning seems the significant aspect of the date. That's why I announced the beginning of the ecliptic-month of Sagittarius here, when it's only one ecliptic-month to the Winter-Solstice.
.
For the rest of the year, and especially during this Solar-declination-increasing time, it isn't the duration to some future date that seems important. What's relevant now is how good it currently is.  Astronomically, that's the current Solar-declination.
.
e.g. today is the day that the Solar-declilnation has just reached and passed the value that's 1/3 of the way back up from the Winter-Solstice, toward the celestial-equator.
.
In fact, the 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 points are all in the Roman month of Februarius. That isn't an accident: A Roman emperor purposely designated the Februa festivities-times as a month. Februa celebrated the first beginnings and first hints and signs of, and  soon arrival of,  Spring.
.
That makes Februarius special.  Likewise the 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 points for the Solar-declination,  from Northward-Equinox to North-Solstice are, for the most part, in April. (The 2/3 point is on May 2nd this year, it seems to me, but that's nearly in April, and nearly all of May is after it.)
.
That those two months encompass the 1/3, 1/2 and 2/3 declination points in their respective quarters makes our Roman Calendar a lot better than I'd previously realized.  ...qualifying it as a genuine Solar astronomical seasonal calendar.
.
People correctly say that Roman is unlikely to be replaced, and that's alright. Yes most alternative proposal would be more convenient, but most people are so used to Roman,  that they don't perceive any inconvenience in it.
.
The Celtic Imbolc (now usually observed on Februarius 1 & 2, rather than at the actual exact middle of the astronomical-quarter) celebrates the soon-to-start transition in Februarius (...though of course the pre-Roman Celts didn't base it on a Roman month).
.
7 Th
Aquarius 18th
Februarius 6th, 2020

------------------------------

End of CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)
************************************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

John--

I agree. Greater closeness to, respect for, and awareness of nature is a purpose for seasonal calendars, and a goal  of my proposed seasonal-calendars.

I propose them as a matter  of principle, regardless of whether people can actually be reached. 

Regrettably, it looks as if the Anthropocene-Extinction is underway and is going to fully happen.

7 Sa
Aquarius 20th
Februarius 8th, 2020

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by john
This email originated from outside ECU.


20 Aquarius♒ 13520 UCC

Dear John

I think anything we can do to get back in synch with nature will help us
have more respect for our environment and natural seasonal cycles, and
this was one of my aims when I launched the UCC 8 years ago. I trust you
find it interesting in that regard

According to my research climate change is constant and will continue in
line with the main Milankovitch cycles regardless of what we do, but of
course the more we are aware of these greater cycles, and the more
accessible annual seasonal cycles, the more we can start again to live
in harmony with nature as we ascend through this Dwapara Yuga/Bronze Age
towards our higher levels of consciousness (in my view).

We must all reduce pollution of all kinds as much as we can wherever
possible, and this was also a motivator for me when quiting my job in
the energy industry, selling my house and lots of stuff and changing my
life to become a travelling musician. I live in a van, mostly "off grid"
and so have a very small pollution footprint compared to when I lived in
the system.

I have found the ancient Hindi approach to the Great Year/Yuga cycle
really helps to keep things in perspective and I incorporated this into
the UCC via its Year Number, Astrological Ages (Great Months), Great
Seasons and Yugas.

Sorry to hear of your tough times with the wildfires. I used to live in
Australia myself and so can truly empathise

Peace, love and freedom

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com

On 2/8/20 10:04 AM, john wrote:

> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
>
> Hello folks, Having just lived through the worst bushfire catastrophe in history, my mind has focused on the question: what role should a calendar play in educating people about extreme weather events, which are far more important than the placement of holidays or leap days. Climate change is real and it will continue unless, and maybe even if, humans pay a lot more attention to the natural world around us. Blackfellas have inhabited my country, Australia, for at least 60,000 years. Only now after this shock with rivers running dry, have the politicians reluctantly begun to pay attention to the aboriginal culture, which looks upon the land and its creatures as the resting place of their ancestors and a nursery for their children. White fellas need to adopt a whole new attitude. They need a relevant calendar to show the way.
> John Regan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of CALNDR-L automatic digest system
> Sent: Friday, 7 February 2020 3:00 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)
>
> There are 10 messages totaling 3852 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>    1. Michaelmas dates (2)
>    2. Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar (4)
>    3. 13520.11.18 - Re: Weekend Rest Calendar
>    4. 13520.11.18 - Re: Michaelmas dates
>    5. 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar (2)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 5 Feb 2020 22:53:50 -0800
> From:    David Peterson <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Michaelmas dates
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Victor:
>
> In my own Scandinavian family research, I have found that you cannot assume that the christening record is absolutely chronological. For the most part, it is chronological, but there are always exceptions. I have certainly encountered scenarios where the child's christening (which may have been one done at home and reported later) is entered at a later position in the book. I can guess at various other reasons for this, but it possible that you are seeing such a situation and later entry.
>
> David Peterson
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 4:38 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Dear Calendar people,
>
> Today I've been spending some time working on my family tree in a particular family. It seems there are two people named Sissela, daughter of Svend Spidsøen, born a bit more than a year apart. In fact the gap between them is about the same as the gap between my older brother and me, so it's possible for them to be sisters.
>
> In Norway, it is common practice to name children after ancestors or deceased spouses or children. So an idea I had was that the first one born died before the second one was born. But I couldn't find a death record in the range between the two births (actually birth dates are not recorded - only baptism dates).
>
> In any case, one of the girls was baptized 14 Jun 1766. The other was born on Fes. Michaelis 1767. There was a feast day reduction act in Norway in 1770 that eliminated this feast, which encyclopedias give as 29 September or the nearest Sunday. I see wikipedia also gives 10 or 11 October for Old Michelmas.
>
> The problem is that the parish record is a chronological record, so entries are exected to be in chronological order. The entry prior to this one is dated 20 October.
>
> That leads to my question: is there any scenario were Michaelmas comes after 20 October in 1767 in Norway?
>
> Victor
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:14:57 +0000
> From:    "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
>
> The offset I suggest is the same for every year. It removes the preference given to the start of the first month.
>
>
> The important point is that the total error is equal to the year start error + the year structure error. The two are independent for any calendar where every month has a constant length except for the last month. The two errors can be minimised independently. This is what I do with the year structure error.
>
>
> To prevent the offset from increasing the total error an equal and opposite offset needs to be applied to the year start rule.
>
>
> Karl
>
>
> Thursday Beta February 2020
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 Feb, 2020 At 19:14
> Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Yes, it's true that my Ecliptic-MonthsCalendar favors the first month-start's ecliptic-accuracy, and will often or usually acquire error later in the year. ...whereas one could add a constant that would minimize the mean or root-mean-square ecliptic-error for the whole year.
>
> But that constant would have to be different fro each year, and I don't know if that would be acceptable, because it would greatly complicate the yearstart rule.
>
> 7 W
> Aquarius 17th
> Februarius 5th, 2020
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:27 AM [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
>
> Michael said
>
>
> "Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my proposal."
>
>
> I have thought more about this and indeed my proposal is best for a year that begins exactly on the March equinox or whenever the first ecliptic-month begins. I realised what my idea does, is to separate the year start error from the year structure error and minimises that latter. In a calendar, where every month has a constant length, except the last month which may have a leap day, the year start errors of the years and year structure errors of the months are independent of each other. So to get the minimum error one can minimise the year start error and year structure error separately.
>
>
> The main drawback of my method is that it produces irregular month lengths. However it does also provide a method of evaluating the year structure errors for more regular month lengths, regardless of what method is used to produce them.
>
>
> Michael's reply has led me to consider a refinement of my method. This is to add a small constant, which I call the offset to the year structure errors. The year start rule can then be adjusted by this offset, so the total error is not increased by the offset. The effect of this refinement is to improve the accuracy of the month starts of the 2nd, 3rd to 12th months at the expense of the 1st, which gets preferential treatment without the refinement.
>
>
> I may deal with this refinement in more detail in a later note. Also if I do so, I may change the signs of the error figures to indicate how much a month begins before the corresponding ecliptic-month. Then the errors fit into Michael's concept of displacement, which is effectively the number of days owed by the calendar and paid by adding a day or week to a month or year.
>
>
> Karl
>
>
> Wednesday Beta February 2020
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 Feb, 2020 At 19:16
> Subject: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
>
> I' ordinarily reply to the thread in which the comment was made, but I can't find it, because the comment that I'm replying to was evidently posted to the wrong thread.
>
> Karl--in support of his suggestion to choose an ecliptic-month calendar's month-lengths by choosing its month-start dates by getting as close as possible to the actual astronomical ecliptic-month-start (trropical-sign-entry) dates of some particular year--spoke of my proposal having a "weakeness" because it wasn't derived in that manner.
>
> Well, then evidently the Indian National Calendar shares that same "weakness", because my month-lengths are identical to its month-lengths, except that I move the extra day and the leapday to the last month of the year. So, fo Karl, the designers of the Indian National Calendar, too, were wrong and Karl is right.
>
> Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my propsal.
>
> As I've already explained twice, the stable and un-arbitrary to choose the month-lengths is to directly determine and use the astronomical ecliptic month-lengths, as I did, and as the Indian National Calendar does.
>
> Karl has again exhibted his habitual tendency to prematurely and sloppily shoot his mouth off to say that someone else is wrong.
>
> 7 Tu
> Aquarius 16th
> Februarius 4th, 2020
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:27:19 +0000
> From:    Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]>
> Subject: 13520.11.18 - Re: Weekend Rest Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
>
> 18♒20 UCC
>
> Hi Walter
>
> Can you share a link to your Olympiad Calendar please? I am collecting all the calendars created by people on this list into bookmarks for ease of reference
>
> Thanks
>
> Litmus
>
> -----------------------
> Litmus A Freeman
> Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
> www.universalcelestialcalendar.com<http://www.universalcelestialcalendar.com>
>
> On 2/1/20 9:14 PM, Walter J Ziobro wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
>
> Dear Karl
>
> A similar result can be obtained by organizing my Olympiad Calendar into Pentiads and Hexiads of year groups 6-5 and 6-5-6
>
> WalterZiobro
>
>
> ________________________________
> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 k.palmen <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
>
> Dear Calendar People
>
>
> I have previously posted to this list the idea of a Calendar, inspired by a calendar that normally displays one day per page but puts both weekend days on the same page. This calendar has 'dates' that consist of either one weekday or a whole weekend. Then we can have 12 months each of 26 'dates', except the last month, which has 27 dates in a common year and 28 dates in a leap year. Then leap years need occur only once every 15 or 16 year, because a common year starting on Saturday has 53 weekends and so 366 days.
>
>
> Now I explore the idea further and come up with a calendar to use. I found that the calendar is simpler if the leap years occur in intervals of 11 and 17 years, rather than 15 and 16 years, because every leap year then begins on the same day of the week. This also means we can avoid leap years that begin on a Friday or Saturday, which have 367 days. Also we can avoid leap years that begin on a Monday or Thursday, which occur next another 366-day year. So I choose leap years to begin on Wednesday.
>
>
> The simplest accurate cycle is the 62-year cycle with 4 leap year (17+17+17+11). I choose the Rata Die epoch of Monday 1 January 1 CE in the Proleptic Gregorian calendar and leap years on the 3rd, 20th, 37th & 54th years of the 62-year cycle. Then the years of the 62-year cycle begin thus:
>
>
> Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
>
> 01 02 03 -- 04 05
>
> 06 07 08 09 10 11
>
> 12 13 14 15 16 17
>
> 18 19 20 -- 21 22
>
> 23 24 25 26 27 28
>
> 29 30 31 32 33 34
>
> 35 36 37 -- 38 39
>
> 40 41 42 43 44 45
>
> 46 47 48 49 50 51
>
> 52 53 54 -- 55 56
>
> 57 58 59 60 61 62
>
>
> This year 2020 is the 36th year of a 62-year cycle (2020 - (32*62) = 36) and begins on a Tuesday and therefore on Tuesday 31 December 2019. Today is the 33rd day of that year so the 29th 'date', making it Saturday, date 3 of Month 2. Tomorrow will be Sunday, date 3 of Month 2 Year 2020 and the following day Monday, date 4 of Month 2, with 'Monday' optional ('Saturday' & 'Sunday' not optional).
>
>
> I call it the Weekend Rest Calendar, because the calendar takes a rest at the weekend. It is not a serious calendar reform proposal, but something to explore.
>
>
> Karl
>
>
> Saturday, 3 Month 2, Year 2020
>
>
> Saturday Alpha February 2020
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:53:13 +0000
> From:    "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
>
> Here I show the weakness of Michael's method in its full glory unmitigated by the early leap day of the Indian National Calendar. Both the extra day and leap day are added to the last month. I reverse the signs to make the errors more like displacements.
>
>
> The year structure errors shown in hours are how long each month begins before the corresponding ecliptic month for a year that begins on the March equinox, whose year start error is zero.
>
>
> 00 17 10 18 29 36
>
> 34 44 41 30 35 44
>
>
> The range is 00 to 44. The first 7 months are 44 hours shorter than the first 7 ecliptic months and this also applies it the first 11 months. This means every year has a total error of magnitude of at least 22 hours for at least one month. This applies regardless of the choice of year start rule.
>
>
> I have found that the choice of which month the extra day is added to, makes a big difference. If it were placed in the first 7 months, that difference of 44 hours would be reduced to 20 hours and if Cancer is chosen for the extra day we get:
>
>
> 00 +17 +10 +18 +05 +12
>
> +10 +20 +17 +06 +11 +20
>
>
> If an offset of -10 hours (10 hours earlier) is applied, we get:
>
>
> -10 +07 00 +08 -05 +02
>
> 00 +10 +07 -04 +01 +10
>
>
> which are all less than 12 hours, so would be got by my method with and offset of 10 hours earlier (also 9 or 11 hours would produce the same month lengths), which I showed in an earlier note.
>
>
> This would work best if the year start rule places the new year an average 10 hours before the equinox.
>
>
> The month lengths are
>
> 30 31 31 32 31 31
>
> 30 30 30 29 30 30
>
>
> I thought about when the best time to place the extra day and its when the month length is rounded down and is close to being rounded up and the same applies to nearby months. This is when the rounding error accumulates the fastest.
>
>
> Karl
>
>
> Thursday Beta February 2020
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> To: "East Carolina University Calendar discussion List" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 11:14
> Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
>
> The offset I suggest is the same for every year. It removes the preference given to the start of the first month.
>
>
> The important point is that the total error is equal to the year start error + the year structure error. The two are independent for any calendar where every month has a constant length except for the last month. The two errors can be minimised independently. This is what I do with the year structure error.
>
>
> To prevent the offset from increasing the total error an equal and opposite offset needs to be applied to the year start rule.
>
>
> Karl
>
>
> Thursday Beta February 2020
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 Feb, 2020 At 19:14
> Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Yes, it's true that my Ecliptic-MonthsCalendar favors the first month-start's ecliptic-accuracy, and will often or usually acquire error later in the year. ...whereas one could add a constant that would minimize the mean or root-mean-square ecliptic-error for the whole year.
>
> But that constant would have to be different fro each year, and I don't know if that would be acceptable, because it would greatly complicate the yearstart rule.
>
> 7 W
> Aquarius 17th
> Februarius 5th, 2020
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:27 AM [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
>
> Michael said
>
>
> "Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my proposal."
>
>
> I have thought more about this and indeed my proposal is best for a year that begins exactly on the March equinox or whenever the first ecliptic-month begins. I realised what my idea does, is to separate the year start error from the year structure error and minimises that latter. In a calendar, where every month has a constant length, except the last month which may have a leap day, the year start errors of the years and year structure errors of the months are independent of each other. So to get the minimum error one can minimise the year start error and year structure error separately.
>
>
> The main drawback of my method is that it produces irregular month lengths. However it does also provide a method of evaluating the year structure errors for more regular month lengths, regardless of what method is used to produce them.
>
>
> Michael's reply has led me to consider a refinement of my method. This is to add a small constant, which I call the offset to the year structure errors. The year start rule can then be adjusted by this offset, so the total error is not increased by the offset. The effect of this refinement is to improve the accuracy of the month starts of the 2nd, 3rd to 12th months at the expense of the 1st, which gets preferential treatment without the refinement.
>
>
> I may deal with this refinement in more detail in a later note. Also if I do so, I may change the signs of the error figures to indicate how much a month begins before the corresponding ecliptic-month. Then the errors fit into Michael's concept of displacement, which is effectively the number of days owed by the calendar and paid by adding a day or week to a month or year.
>
>
> Karl
>
>
> Wednesday Beta February 2020
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 Feb, 2020 At 19:16
> Subject: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
>
> I' ordinarily reply to the thread in which the comment was made, but I can't find it, because the comment that I'm replying to was evidently posted to the wrong thread.
>
> Karl--in support of his suggestion to choose an ecliptic-month calendar's month-lengths by choosing its month-start dates by getting as close as possible to the actual astronomical ecliptic-month-start (trropical-sign-entry) dates of some particular year--spoke of my proposal having a "weakeness" because it wasn't derived in that manner.
>
> Well, then evidently the Indian National Calendar shares that same "weakness", because my month-lengths are identical to its month-lengths, except that I move the extra day and the leapday to the last month of the year. So, fo Karl, the designers of the Indian National Calendar, too, were wrong and Karl is right.
>
> Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my propsal.
>
> As I've already explained twice, the stable and un-arbitrary to choose the month-lengths is to directly determine and use the astronomical ecliptic month-lengths, as I did, and as the Indian National Calendar does.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:44:41 -0600
> From:    Victor Engel <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Michaelmas dates
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> I thought of that. Usually it happens when the baptism happens at home and is later blessed by the priest when he makes his rounds.
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:53 AM David Peterson <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Victor:
>
> In my own Scandinavian family research, I have found that you cannot assume that the christening record is absolutely chronological. For the most part, it is chronological, but there are always exceptions. I have certainly encountered scenarios where the child's christening (which may have been one done at home and reported later) is entered at a later position in the book. I can guess at various other reasons for this, but it possible that you are seeing such a situation and later entry.
>
> David Peterson
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 4:38 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Dear Calendar people,
>
> Today I've been spending some time working on my family tree in a particular family. It seems there are two people named Sissela, daughter of Svend Spidsøen, born a bit more than a year apart. In fact the gap between them is about the same as the gap between my older brother and me, so it's possible for them to be sisters.
>
> In Norway, it is common practice to name children after ancestors or deceased spouses or children. So an idea I had was that the first one born died before the second one was born. But I couldn't find a death record in the range between the two births (actually birth dates are not recorded - only baptism dates).
>
> In any case, one of the girls was baptized 14 Jun 1766. The other was born on Fes. Michaelis 1767. There was a feast day reduction act in Norway in 1770 that eliminated this feast, which encyclopedias give as 29 September or the nearest Sunday. I see wikipedia also gives 10 or 11 October for Old Michelmas.
>
> The problem is that the parish record is a chronological record, so entries are exected to be in chronological order. The entry prior to this one is dated 20 October.
>
> That leads to my question: is there any scenario were Michaelmas comes after 20 October in 1767 in Norway?
>
> Victor
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:05:07 +0000
> From:    Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]>
> Subject: 13520.11.18 - Re: Michaelmas dates
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
>
> 18 Aquarius♒ 13520 UCC
>
> Dear Walter, Michael and calendar people
>
> Yes, I agreed. As far as I could tell from my research all the ancient Quarter and Cross Quarter day festivals were "hijacked" by religion for their own purposes.
>
> There were 8 "Fire Festivals" in the ancient Celtic Druidic year which took place on the nearest full moon to the Season starts and Mid Season points, at the Equinoxes & Solstices and at the mid points between them. It's known as "The Eight Fold Year" and it was one of my first inspirations for creating the UCC, having read about it in a book about "Bards, Ovates & Druids". I have these 8 festivals in the UCC at their appropriate places in the Triad Months and the Zodiac.
>
> We have just passed the Mid Season Festival of Aquarius♒, which is at the middle of the middle Triad Month of the last Quarter Season (Quarter 4) of the Year. There is a page about this on the UCC Website here:
>
> https://universalcelestialcalendar.com/festivals-8-midseasonQ4.htm
>
> This time is known as "Imbolc" in the 'pagan' system and celebrates the ending of northern Winter and the coming of northern Spring. It is also the time of "Groundhog Day" in the northern US as I'm sure you are all aware!
>
> I have some more info about this aspect of the calendar on the UCC Wiki Page here:
>
> https://universalcelestialcalendar.com/Universal%20Community%20Calendar%20Wiki.backup.html#Eight_Seasonal_Festivals
>
> https://universalcelestialcalendar.com/Universal%20Community%20Calendar%20Wiki.backup.html#More_About_Festivals
>
> I am currently in Portugal, where they celebrate many of these times as Saints Days from the Roman Catholic system as Walter has pointed out, with "Sao Joao" (Saint John) at the Nolstice/Cancer♋ Solstice being one of their major annual celebrations, as it also is in many Celtic parts of northern Spain such as Galicia
>
> Regards
>
> Litmus
>
> -----------------------
> Litmus A Freeman
> Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
> www.universalcelestialcalendar.com<http://www.universalcelestialcalendar.com>
>
> On 2/6/20 4:14 AM, Walter J Ziobro wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
>
> Dear Michael
>
> IMO you are correct The Church appropriated pagan celebrations of both seasonal and quarter dates and Christianized them
>
> We have Christmas near the south solstice And Easter near the northward equinox But also John the Baptist at the north solstice and Michaelmass near the southward equinox
>
> But we also have quarter days that have been Chritianized Candlemas in February, Mayday, Lammas, feast of the Transfiguration in August, and All Saints Day in November
>
> WalterZiobro
>
>
> ________________________________
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Speaking of church-holidays, I've heard that Saint Briget's Day (Februarius 1st) is at a time that was anciently a celebration of the pre-Roman Celtic goddess Brigde.    ...and that her name and (approximate) day were appropriated by the church.
>
> I'd previously heard that of course that was the case with the pre-Roman Yule, but I didn't know that that was done with other pre-Roman seasonal-observances.
>
> 7 W
> Aquarius 17th
> Februarius 5th
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:38 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Dear Calendar people,
>
> Today I've been spending some time working on my family tree in a particular family. It seems there are two people named Sissela, daughter of Svend Spidsøen, born a bit more than a year apart. In fact the gap between them is about the same as the gap between my older brother and me, so it's possible for them to be sisters.
>
> In Norway, it is common practice to name children after ancestors or deceased spouses or children. So an idea I had was that the first one born died before the second one was born. But I couldn't find a death record in the range between the two births (actually birth dates are not recorded - only baptism dates).
>
> In any case, one of the girls was baptized 14 Jun 1766. The other was born on Fes. Michaelis 1767. There was a feast day reduction act in Norway in 1770 that eliminated this feast, which encyclopedias give as 29 September or the nearest Sunday. I see wikipedia also gives 10 or 11 October for Old Michelmas.
>
> The problem is that the parish record is a chronological record, so entries are exected to be in chronological order. The entry prior to this one is dated 20 October.
>
> That leads to my question: is there any scenario were Michaelmas comes after 20 October in 1767 in Norway?
>
> Victor
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:07:08 +0000
> From:    Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]>
> Subject: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
>
> 18♒20 UCC
>
>
> Dear Karl
>
>
> Please could you share a link to your latest calendar? (Once one is available)
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Litmus
>
> -----------------------
> Litmus A Freeman
> Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
> www.universalcelestialcalendar.com<http://www.universalcelestialcalendar.com>
>
> On 2/6/20 11:14 AM, [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
>
> The offset I suggest is the same for every year. It removes the preference given to the start of the first month.
>
>
> The important point is that the total error is equal to the year start error + the year structure error. The two are independent for any calendar where every month has a constant length except for the last month. The two errors can be minimised independently. This is what I do with the year structure error.
>
>
> To prevent the offset from increasing the total error an equal and opposite offset needs to be applied to the year start rule.
>
>
> Karl
>
>
> Thursday Beta February 2020
>
> ------ Original Message ------ From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, 5 Feb, 2020 At 19:14 Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
> This email originated from outside ECU.
> Yes, it's true that my Ecliptic-MonthsCalendar favors the first month-start's ecliptic-accuracy, and will often or usually acquire error later in the year. ...whereas one could add a constant that would minimize the mean or root-mean-square ecliptic-error for the whole year.
> But that constant would have to be different fro each year, and I don't know if that would be acceptable, because it would greatly complicate the yearstart rule.
> 7 W
> Aquarius 17th
> Februarius 5th, 2020
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:27 AM [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
> Michael said
>
> "Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my proposal."
>
> I have thought more about this and indeed my proposal is best for a year that begins exactly on the March equinox or whenever the first ecliptic-month begins. I realised what my idea does, is to separate the year start error from the year structure error and minimises that latter. In a calendar, where every month has a constant length, except the last month which may have a leap day, the year start errors of the years and year structure errors of the months are independent of each other. So to get the minimum error one can minimise the year start error and year structure error separately.
>
> The main drawback of my method is that it produces irregular month lengths. However it does also provide a method of evaluating the year structure errors for more regular month lengths, regardless of what method is used to produce them.
>
> Michael's reply has led me to consider a refinement of my method. This is to add a small constant, which I call the offset to the year structure errors. The year start rule can then be adjusted by this offset, so the total error is not increased by the offset. The effect of this refinement is to improve the accuracy of the month starts of the 2nd, 3rd to 12th months at the expense of the 1st, which gets preferential treatment without the refinement.
>
> I may deal with this refinement in more detail in a later note. Also if I do so, I may change the signs of the error figures to indicate how much a month begins before the corresponding ecliptic-month. Then the errors fit into Michael's concept of displacement, which is effectively the number of days owed by the calendar and paid by adding a day or week to a month or year.
>
> Karl
>
> Wednesday Beta February 2020
>
> ------ Original Message ------ From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: Tuesday, 4 Feb, 2020 At 19:16 Subject: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
> This email originated from outside ECU.
> I' ordinarily reply to the thread in which the comment was made, but I can't find it, because the comment that I'm replying to was evidently posted to the wrong thread.
> Karl--in support of his suggestion to choose an ecliptic-month calendar's month-lengths by choosing its month-start dates by getting as close as possible to the actual astronomical ecliptic-month-start (trropical-sign-entry) dates of some particular year--spoke of my proposal having a "weakeness" because it wasn't derived in that manner.
> Well, then evidently the Indian National Calendar shares that same "weakness", because my month-lengths are identical to its month-lengths, except that I move the extra day and the leapday to the last month of the year. So, fo Karl, the designers of the Indian National Calendar, too, were wrong and Karl is right.
> Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my propsal.
> As I've already explained twice, the stable and un-arbitrary to choose the month-lengths is to directly determine and use the astronomical ecliptic month-lengths, as I did, and as the Indian National Calendar does.
> Karl has again exhibted his habitual tendency to prematurely and sloppily shoot his mouth off to say that someone else is wrong.
> 7 Tu
> Aquarius 16th
> Februarius 4th, 2020
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:15:44 +0000
> From:    Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]>
> Subject: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
>
> 18/11/20 UCC
>
>
> Dear Karl
>
>
> You said
>
>
> "...The year structure errors shown in hours are how long each month begins before the corresponding ecliptic month for a year that begins on the March equinox, whose year start error is zero..."
>
>
> Does this allow for the approximately 6 hour difference in the time of the occurrence of the Aries♈Equinox from year to year (until the 'reset' of a leap day). If the year begins on the equinox are you then starting it from midnight on that day?
>
>
> Just want to make sure I understand you correctly
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Litmus
>
>
> -----------------------
> Litmus A Freeman
> Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
> www.universalcelestialcalendar.com<http://www.universalcelestialcalendar.com>
>
> On 2/6/20 12:53 PM, [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
>
> Here I show the weakness of Michael's method in its full glory unmitigated by the early leap day of the Indian National Calendar. Both the extra day and leap day are added to the last month. I reverse the signs to make the errors more like displacements.
>
>
> The year structure errors shown in hours are how long each month begins before the corresponding ecliptic month for a year that begins on the March equinox, whose year start error is zero.
>
>
> 00 17 10 18 29 36
>
> 34 44 41 30 35 44
>
>
> The range is 00 to 44. The first 7 months are 44 hours shorter than the first 7 ecliptic months and this also applies it the first 11 months. This means every year has a total error of magnitude of at least 22 hours for at least one month. This applies regardless of the choice of year start rule.
>
>
> I have found that the choice of which month the extra day is added to, makes a big difference. If it were placed in the first 7 months, that difference of 44 hours would be reduced to 20 hours and if Cancer is chosen for the extra day we get:
>
>
> 00 +17 +10 +18 +05 +12
>
> +10 +20 +17 +06 +11 +20
>
>
> If an offset of -10 hours (10 hours earlier) is applied, we get:
>
>
> -10 +07 00 +08 -05 +02
>
> 00 +10 +07 -04 +01 +10
>
>
> which are all less than 12 hours, so would be got by my method with and offset of 10 hours earlier (also 9 or 11 hours would produce the same month lengths), which I showed in an earlier note.
>
>
> This would work best if the year start rule places the new year an average 10 hours before the equinox.
>
>
> The month lengths are
>
> 30 31 31 32 31 31
>
> 30 30 30 29 30 30
>
>
> I thought about when the best time to place the extra day and its when the month length is rounded down and is close to being rounded up and the same applies to nearby months. This is when the rounding error accumulates the fastest.
>
>
> Karl
>
>
> Thursday Beta February 2020
>
> ------ Original Message ------ From: "[hidden email]"<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> To: "East Carolina University Calendar discussion List" <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 11:14 Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
> The offset I suggest is the same for every year. It removes the preference given to the start of the first month.
>
> The important point is that the total error is equal to the year start error + the year structure error. The two are independent for any calendar where every month has a constant length except for the last month. The two errors can be minimised independently. This is what I do with the year structure error.
>
> To prevent the offset from increasing the total error an equal and opposite offset needs to be applied to the year start rule.
>
> Karl
>
> Thursday Beta February 2020
>
> ------ Original Message ------ From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, 5 Feb, 2020 At 19:14 Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
> This email originated from outside ECU.
> Yes, it's true that my Ecliptic-MonthsCalendar favors the first month-start's ecliptic-accuracy, and will often or usually acquire error later in the year. ...whereas one could add a constant that would minimize the mean or root-mean-square ecliptic-error for the whole year.
> But that constant would have to be different fro each year, and I don't know if that would be acceptable, because it would greatly complicate the yearstart rule.
> 7 W
> Aquarius 17th
> Februarius 5th, 2020
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:27 AM [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
> Michael said
>
> "Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my proposal."
>
> I have thought more about this and indeed my proposal is best for a year that begins exactly on the March equinox or whenever the first ecliptic-month begins. I realised what my idea does, is to separate the year start error from the year structure error and minimises that latter. In a calendar, where every month has a constant length, except the last month which may have a leap day, the year start errors of the years and year structure errors of the months are independent of each other. So to get the minimum error one can minimise the year start error and year structure error separately.
>
> The main drawback of my method is that it produces irregular month lengths. However it does also provide a method of evaluating the year structure errors for more regular month lengths, regardless of what method is used to produce them.
>
> Michael's reply has led me to consider a refinement of my method. This is to add a small constant, which I call the offset to the year structure errors. The year start rule can then be adjusted by this offset, so the total error is not increased by the offset. The effect of this refinement is to improve the accuracy of the month starts of the 2nd, 3rd to 12th months at the expense of the 1st, which gets preferential treatment without the refinement.
>
> I may deal with this refinement in more detail in a later note. Also if I do so, I may change the signs of the error figures to indicate how much a month begins before the corresponding ecliptic-month. Then the errors fit into Michael's concept of displacement, which is effectively the number of days owed by the calendar and paid by adding a day or week to a month or year.
>
> Karl
>
> Wednesday Beta February 2020
>
> ------ Original Message ------ From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: Tuesday, 4 Feb, 2020 At 19:16 Subject: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
> This email originated from outside ECU.
> I' ordinarily reply to the thread in which the comment was made, but I can't find it, because the comment that I'm replying to was evidently posted to the wrong thread.
> Karl--in support of his suggestion to choose an ecliptic-month calendar's month-lengths by choosing its month-start dates by getting as close as possible to the actual astronomical ecliptic-month-start (trropical-sign-entry) dates of some particular year--spoke of my proposal having a "weakeness" because it wasn't derived in that manner.
> Well, then evidently the Indian National Calendar shares that same "weakness", because my month-lengths are identical to its month-lengths, except that I move the extra day and the leapday to the last month of the year. So, fo Karl, the designers of the Indian National Calendar, too, were wrong and Karl is right.
> Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my propsal.
> As I've already explained twice, the stable and un-arbitrary to choose the month-lengths is to directly determine and use the astronomical ecliptic month-lengths, as I did, and as the Indian National Calendar does.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:17:17 +0000
> From:    "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
>
> Michael has criticised my method as being unstable. I have taken stability to mean that each month besides the month that takes the leap day is the same length year to year. If Michael means something else by stability, he needs to explain it carefully.
>
>
> I let you know what my method is not. Take the start times of the ecliptic-months from the start of the calendar year, round them and take the month lengths from the differences. This method is the most accurate possible. The figures rounded change from year to year and so do the month lengths.
>
>
> I found a way of modifying this so the month lengths do not change from year to year, except for the last month, which takes the leap day. It is the same as the previous method, but the start of the calendar year is changed to the start of the first ecliptic-month (March equinox). This method is less accurate, because of the constraint of constant month lengths. The error reckoned by my method is just part of the error and the only part that changes during the year. The other part is the error that arises from the timing of the start of the year and is the same for all months of the year. This other part also the error added because each month has the same length from year to year, except for the leap day.
>
>
> Karl
>
>
> Thursday Beta February 2020
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> To: "East Carolina University Calendar discussion List" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 11:14
> Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
>
> The offset I suggest is the same for every year. It removes the preference given to the start of the first month.
>
>
> The important point is that the total error is equal to the year start error + the year structure error. The two are independent for any calendar where every month has a constant length except for the last month. The two errors can be minimised independently. This is what I do with the year structure error.
>
>
> To prevent the offset from increasing the total error an equal and opposite offset needs to be applied to the year start rule.
>
>
> Karl
>
>
> Thursday Beta February 2020
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 Feb, 2020 At 19:14
> Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Yes, it's true that my Ecliptic-MonthsCalendar favors the first month-start's ecliptic-accuracy, and will often or usually acquire error later in the year. ...whereas one could add a constant that would minimize the mean or root-mean-square ecliptic-error for the whole year.
>
> But that constant would have to be different fro each year, and I don't know if that would be acceptable, because it would greatly complicate the yearstart rule.
>
> 7 W
> Aquarius 17th
> Februarius 5th, 2020
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:27 AM [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Dear Michael and Calendar People
>
>
> Michael said
>
>
> "Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my proposal."
>
>
> I have thought more about this and indeed my proposal is best for a year that begins exactly on the March equinox or whenever the first ecliptic-month begins. I realised what my idea does, is to separate the year start error from the year structure error and minimises that latter. In a calendar, where every month has a constant length, except the last month which may have a leap day, the year start errors of the years and year structure errors of the months are independent of each other. So to get the minimum error one can minimise the year start error and year structure error separately.
>
>
> The main drawback of my method is that it produces irregular month lengths. However it does also provide a method of evaluating the year structure errors for more regular month lengths, regardless of what method is used to produce them.
>
>
> Michael's reply has led me to consider a refinement of my method. This is to add a small constant, which I call the offset to the year structure errors. The year start rule can then be adjusted by this offset, so the total error is not increased by the offset. The effect of this refinement is to improve the accuracy of the month starts of the 2nd, 3rd to 12th months at the expense of the 1st, which gets preferential treatment without the refinement.
>
>
> I may deal with this refinement in more detail in a later note. Also if I do so, I may change the signs of the error figures to indicate how much a month begins before the corresponding ecliptic-month. Then the errors fit into Michael's concept of displacement, which is effectively the number of days owed by the calendar and paid by adding a day or week to a month or year.
>
>
> Karl
>
>
> Wednesday Beta February 2020
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Michael Ossipoff" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 Feb, 2020 At 19:16
> Subject: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
>
> I' ordinarily reply to the thread in which the comment was made, but I can't find it, because the comment that I'm replying to was evidently posted to the wrong thread.
>
> Karl--in support of his suggestion to choose an ecliptic-month calendar's month-lengths by choosing its month-start dates by getting as close as possible to the actual astronomical ecliptic-month-start (trropical-sign-entry) dates of some particular year--spoke of my proposal having a "weakeness" because it wasn't derived in that manner.
>
> Well, then evidently the Indian National Calendar shares that same "weakness", because my month-lengths are identical to its month-lengths, except that I move the extra day and the leapday to the last month of the year. So, fo Karl, the designers of the Indian National Calendar, too, were wrong and Karl is right.
>
> Of course it goes without saying that, if you choose the month-lengths by making the month-starts coincide as closely as possible to the tropical-sign entries of a particular year, then the ecliptic-accuracy will be optimized for that year, and for some similar years. And it's equally obvious that, in other years, the ecliptic accuracy will be worse than that of my propsal.
>
> As I've already explained twice, the stable and un-arbitrary to choose the month-lengths is to directly determine and use the astronomical ecliptic month-lengths, as I did, and as the Indian National Calendar does.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:28:07 -0500
> From:    Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
>
> This email originated from outside ECU.
>
> Karl--
> .
> To compare the max-error and av error of the proposals, it would be necessary to have the specific details about the offsets.
> .
> But there's good reason to make yearstart as close as possible to the South-Solstice:  For the cold parts of the world, most of which and coldest of which (not counting uninhabited Antarctica), are north of the Equator, the South-Solstice is perceived as a significant and important beginning, when the Earth and nature start returning to life.
> .
> That's the awaited and anticipated ecliptic-point, in the cold North.
> .
> For the Fall-Winter astronomical-quarter, equinox to solstice, the duration to the Winter-Solstice upturn-beginning seems the significant aspect of the date. That's why I announced the beginning of the ecliptic-month of Sagittarius here, when it's only one ecliptic-month to the Winter-Solstice.
> .
> For the rest of the year, and especially during this Solar-declination-increasing time, it isn't the duration to some future date that seems important. What's relevant now is how good it currently is.  Astronomically, that's the current Solar-declination.
> .
> e.g. today is the day that the Solar-declilnation has just reached and passed the value that's 1/3 of the way back up from the Winter-Solstice, toward the celestial-equator.
> .
> In fact, the 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 points are all in the Roman month of Februarius. That isn't an accident: A Roman emperor purposely designated the Februa festivities-times as a month. Februa celebrated the first beginnings and first hints and signs of, and  soon arrival of,  Spring.
> .
> That makes Februarius special.  Likewise the 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 points for the Solar-declination,  from Northward-Equinox to North-Solstice are, for the most part, in April. (The 2/3 point is on May 2nd this year, it seems to me, but that's nearly in April, and nearly all of May is after it.)
> .
> That those two months encompass the 1/3, 1/2 and 2/3 declination points in their respective quarters makes our Roman Calendar a lot better than I'd previously realized.  ...qualifying it as a genuine Solar astronomical seasonal calendar.
> .
> People correctly say that Roman is unlikely to be replaced, and that's alright. Yes most alternative proposal would be more convenient, but most people are so used to Roman,  that they don't perceive any inconvenience in it.
> .
> The Celtic Imbolc (now usually observed on Februarius 1 & 2, rather than at the actual exact middle of the astronomical-quarter) celebrates the soon-to-start transition in Februarius (...though of course the pre-Roman Celts didn't base it on a Roman month).
> .
> 7 Th
> Aquarius 18th
> Februarius 6th, 2020
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)
> ************************************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

20/11/20 UCC

Michael

Whilst I know you have come to share my aims of seasonal calendars helping to improve awareness of nature etc I have to disagree with your last paragraph

I would encourage you to study the Yuga cycle (which the UCC Year Number is derived from) and the Milankovitch Cycles theory of climate change

Whilst of course doing everything you can to reduce your pollution footprint and increase your positive impact on nature (such as crop growing and tree planting/conservation)

All the best

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 2:22 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

John--

I agree. Greater closeness to, respect for, and awareness of nature is a purpose for seasonal calendars, and a goal  of my proposed seasonal-calendars.

I propose them as a matter  of principle, regardless of whether people can actually be reached. 

Regrettably, it looks as if the Anthropocene-Extinction is underway and is going to fully happen.

7 Sa
Aquarius 20th
Februarius 8th, 2020

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

Climate-scientists are virtually unanimous that the Milankovich cycles are going to be completely overwhelmed and made irrelevant by anthropogenic global-heating.

The Yuga cycles were designated before anthropogenic climate-change was started or expected.

The Earth and its life have survived a number of mass-extinctions, and they'll survive this Anthropocene-Extinction too.  New species will arise to replace the (many) extinct ones. The ecological-niches will be filled by new species
 



On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:27 AM Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

20/11/20 UCC

Michael

Whilst I know you have come to share my aims of seasonal calendars helping to improve awareness of nature etc I have to disagree with your last paragraph

I would encourage you to study the Yuga cycle (which the UCC Year Number is derived from) and the Milankovitch Cycles theory of climate change

Whilst of course doing everything you can to reduce your pollution footprint and increase your positive impact on nature (such as crop growing and tree planting/conservation)

All the best

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 2:22 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

John--

I agree. Greater closeness to, respect for, and awareness of nature is a purpose for seasonal calendars, and a goal  of my proposed seasonal-calendars.

I propose them as a matter  of principle, regardless of whether people can actually be reached. 

Regrettably, it looks as if the Anthropocene-Extinction is underway and is going to fully happen.

7 Sa
Aquarius 20th
Februarius 8th, 2020

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Litmus A Freeman
This email originated from outside ECU.

22♒13520 UCC

Michael

It depends what sources you look at. I have found many on both sides of the debate. But the important thing is not to argue about something we cannot be sure of or agree on, but rather to focus on what we CAN be sure of and can ALL agree on. I'm sure you'll agree that this common ground is 'pollution' and it's effects. We can all agree that it is bad to pollute the place we live and good to minimise as much as possible this pollution. That is what I'm focusing on. Then, either way, the outcome will be more positive for all of us. If the climate alarmists are right then reducing pollution will minimise the damage to the atmosphere and the climate. If the climate 'deniers' are right then the climate will go on changing in line with natural phenomenon such as the sun spot cycle and the planetary cycles of the Milankovitch theory.

The Yuga cycle theory is ancient for sure, but it suggests a CYCLE that leads to human consciousness, and the associated forming and collapse of civilisations, being cyclical rather than linear, which makes your point rather mute don't you think?

Yes, I'm also optimistic that the planet will survive and carry on, but I don't think any of us can really be sure about exactly what will happen the future, so I wouldn't like to make sweeping statements of such certainty about species. But it seems logical that the more we can reduce our impact on nature the more species will survive and thrive

Regards

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 3:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

Climate-scientists are virtually unanimous that the Milankovich cycles are going to be completely overwhelmed and made irrelevant by anthropogenic global-heating.

The Yuga cycles were designated before anthropogenic climate-change was started or expected.

The Earth and its life have survived a number of mass-extinctions, and they'll survive this Anthropocene-Extinction too.  New species will arise to replace the (many) extinct ones. The ecological-niches will be filled by new species
 



On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:27 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

20/11/20 UCC

Michael

Whilst I know you have come to share my aims of seasonal calendars helping to improve awareness of nature etc I have to disagree with your last paragraph

I would encourage you to study the Yuga cycle (which the UCC Year Number is derived from) and the Milankovitch Cycles theory of climate change

Whilst of course doing everything you can to reduce your pollution footprint and increase your positive impact on nature (such as crop growing and tree planting/conservation)

All the best

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 2:22 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

John--

I agree. Greater closeness to, respect for, and awareness of nature is a purpose for seasonal calendars, and a goal  of my proposed seasonal-calendars.

I propose them as a matter  of principle, regardless of whether people can actually be reached. 

Regrettably, it looks as if the Anthropocene-Extinction is underway and is going to fully happen.

7 Sa
Aquarius 20th
Februarius 8th, 2020

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Yes air--pollution is harming people now.  Hydrocarbons from half-combusted fuel, etc. But the scientific-community is virtually unanimous about anthropogenic global-warming (AGW), and that a mass-extinction, the Anthropocene-Extinction, is on the way.

They warn that we must stop the CO2 emissions immediately, and nothing of the sort is being done.

Wikipedia has a long, long list of prestigious scientific societies and govt-agencies that warn about AGW.  The AGWDs (anthropogenic-global-warming-deniers) can't point to such a list.   ...or even one such agency or society with a contrary message and with any status or standing among climate-scientists.

Cyclical, yes.  Species come and go. It looks like ours and lots of others are going to go. I too am optimistic that the planet and its life will survive and carry-on.   ...with different species after the Anthropocene-Extinction.

Of course this is about likelihood, not certainty, but there's virtual unanimity among climate-scientists about it, even if no  one knows exactly which year will be humanity's last.

But yes, I'm more horrified by attrocities being committed now, and what happens to the victims, than about extinction sometime later.

But the number of Koalas being burned-alive in Australia is horrifying (but would be too even if the number were smaller), and that's due to our AGW.

8 M
Aquarius 22nd
Februarius 10th, 2020



On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 6:59 AM Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

22♒13520 UCC

Michael

It depends what sources you look at. I have found many on both sides of the debate. But the important thing is not to argue about something we cannot be sure of or agree on, but rather to focus on what we CAN be sure of and can ALL agree on. I'm sure you'll agree that this common ground is 'pollution' and it's effects. We can all agree that it is bad to pollute the place we live and good to minimise as much as possible this pollution. That is what I'm focusing on. Then, either way, the outcome will be more positive for all of us. If the climate alarmists are right then reducing pollution will minimise the damage to the atmosphere and the climate. If the climate 'deniers' are right then the climate will go on changing in line with natural phenomenon such as the sun spot cycle and the planetary cycles of the Milankovitch theory.

The Yuga cycle theory is ancient for sure, but it suggests a CYCLE that leads to human consciousness, and the associated forming and collapse of civilisations, being cyclical rather than linear, which makes your point rather mute don't you think?

Yes, I'm also optimistic that the planet will survive and carry on, but I don't think any of us can really be sure about exactly what will happen the future, so I wouldn't like to make sweeping statements of such certainty about species. But it seems logical that the more we can reduce our impact on nature the more species will survive and thrive

Regards

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 3:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

Climate-scientists are virtually unanimous that the Milankovich cycles are going to be completely overwhelmed and made irrelevant by anthropogenic global-heating.

The Yuga cycles were designated before anthropogenic climate-change was started or expected.

The Earth and its life have survived a number of mass-extinctions, and they'll survive this Anthropocene-Extinction too.  New species will arise to replace the (many) extinct ones. The ecological-niches will be filled by new species
 



On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:27 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

20/11/20 UCC

Michael

Whilst I know you have come to share my aims of seasonal calendars helping to improve awareness of nature etc I have to disagree with your last paragraph

I would encourage you to study the Yuga cycle (which the UCC Year Number is derived from) and the Milankovitch Cycles theory of climate change

Whilst of course doing everything you can to reduce your pollution footprint and increase your positive impact on nature (such as crop growing and tree planting/conservation)

All the best

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 2:22 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

John--

I agree. Greater closeness to, respect for, and awareness of nature is a purpose for seasonal calendars, and a goal  of my proposed seasonal-calendars.

I propose them as a matter  of principle, regardless of whether people can actually be reached. 

Regrettably, it looks as if the Anthropocene-Extinction is underway and is going to fully happen.

7 Sa
Aquarius 20th
Februarius 8th, 2020

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Jamison Painter
This email originated from outside ECU.

MICHAEL:

The large number of supposedly important societies saying that humans are nearing extinction are all, every one of them, influenced by the Left Wing Nut Job environment of the universities, and, if they want to keep the money flowing, say exactly what they are told to say. The idea that humans are going go extinct soon cannot possibly be known with certainty, and the fact that there are 7 billion of us speaks against it. Nor is the planet overpopulated, as all of those people could fit into the State of Texas with room to spare.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 7:53 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Yes air--pollution is harming people now.  Hydrocarbons from half-combusted fuel, etc. But the scientific-community is virtually unanimous about anthropogenic global-warming (AGW), and that a mass-extinction, the Anthropocene-Extinction, is on the way.

They warn that we must stop the CO2 emissions immediately, and nothing of the sort is being done.

Wikipedia has a long, long list of prestigious scientific societies and govt-agencies that warn about AGW.  The AGWDs (anthropogenic-global-warming-deniers) can't point to such a list.   ...or even one such agency or society with a contrary message and with any status or standing among climate-scientists.

Cyclical, yes.  Species come and go. It looks like ours and lots of others are going to go. I too am optimistic that the planet and its life will survive and carry-on.   ...with different species after the Anthropocene-Extinction.

Of course this is about likelihood, not certainty, but there's virtual unanimity among climate-scientists about it, even if no  one knows exactly which year will be humanity's last.

But yes, I'm more horrified by attrocities being committed now, and what happens to the victims, than about extinction sometime later.

But the number of Koalas being burned-alive in Australia is horrifying (but would be too even if the number were smaller), and that's due to our AGW.

8 M
Aquarius 22nd
Februarius 10th, 2020



On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 6:59 AM Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

22♒13520 UCC

Michael

It depends what sources you look at. I have found many on both sides of the debate. But the important thing is not to argue about something we cannot be sure of or agree on, but rather to focus on what we CAN be sure of and can ALL agree on. I'm sure you'll agree that this common ground is 'pollution' and it's effects. We can all agree that it is bad to pollute the place we live and good to minimise as much as possible this pollution. That is what I'm focusing on. Then, either way, the outcome will be more positive for all of us. If the climate alarmists are right then reducing pollution will minimise the damage to the atmosphere and the climate. If the climate 'deniers' are right then the climate will go on changing in line with natural phenomenon such as the sun spot cycle and the planetary cycles of the Milankovitch theory.

The Yuga cycle theory is ancient for sure, but it suggests a CYCLE that leads to human consciousness, and the associated forming and collapse of civilisations, being cyclical rather than linear, which makes your point rather mute don't you think?

Yes, I'm also optimistic that the planet will survive and carry on, but I don't think any of us can really be sure about exactly what will happen the future, so I wouldn't like to make sweeping statements of such certainty about species. But it seems logical that the more we can reduce our impact on nature the more species will survive and thrive

Regards

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 3:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

Climate-scientists are virtually unanimous that the Milankovich cycles are going to be completely overwhelmed and made irrelevant by anthropogenic global-heating.

The Yuga cycles were designated before anthropogenic climate-change was started or expected.

The Earth and its life have survived a number of mass-extinctions, and they'll survive this Anthropocene-Extinction too.  New species will arise to replace the (many) extinct ones. The ecological-niches will be filled by new species
 



On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:27 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

20/11/20 UCC

Michael

Whilst I know you have come to share my aims of seasonal calendars helping to improve awareness of nature etc I have to disagree with your last paragraph

I would encourage you to study the Yuga cycle (which the UCC Year Number is derived from) and the Milankovitch Cycles theory of climate change

Whilst of course doing everything you can to reduce your pollution footprint and increase your positive impact on nature (such as crop growing and tree planting/conservation)

All the best

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 2:22 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

John--

I agree. Greater closeness to, respect for, and awareness of nature is a purpose for seasonal calendars, and a goal  of my proposed seasonal-calendars.

I propose them as a matter  of principle, regardless of whether people can actually be reached. 

Regrettably, it looks as if the Anthropocene-Extinction is underway and is going to fully happen.

7 Sa
Aquarius 20th
Februarius 8th, 2020

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Litmus A Freeman
This email originated from outside ECU.

23♒13520 UCC

Dear Michael & Jamison

I tend to agree with Jamison here

[apart from the "left wing" bit as I don't go in for those media designations of politics. I, and others, consider left and right in terms of 'Degree of Government/Ruler-ship' with the left then being "anarchy" in its true form and the right being "monarchy/dictatorship"]

The system is largely based on control through fear, so there is always something they want to frighten people with. Climate change is one such example of scaremongering that has been going on for years.

I also agree that, based on my research, the planet is not overcrowded, and this again is a myth perpetuated by the wealthy elites who wish to maintain their hegemony

Although having said all that we're way of topic now as far as calendars go so maybe we agree to disagree and leave it there...

Once again, let's not argue about things we can't prove either way, but rather focus on the common ground and minimise our pollution in all its forms as much as possible!

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/10/20 5:52 PM, Jamison Painter wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

MICHAEL:

The large number of supposedly important societies saying that humans are nearing extinction are all, every one of them, influenced by the Left Wing Nut Job environment of the universities, and, if they want to keep the money flowing, say exactly what they are told to say. The idea that humans are going go extinct soon cannot possibly be known with certainty, and the fact that there are 7 billion of us speaks against it. Nor is the planet overpopulated, as all of those people could fit into the State of Texas with room to spare.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 7:53 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Yes air--pollution is harming people now.  Hydrocarbons from half-combusted fuel, etc. But the scientific-community is virtually unanimous about anthropogenic global-warming (AGW), and that a mass-extinction, the Anthropocene-Extinction, is on the way.

They warn that we must stop the CO2 emissions immediately, and nothing of the sort is being done.

Wikipedia has a long, long list of prestigious scientific societies and govt-agencies that warn about AGW.  The AGWDs (anthropogenic-global-warming-deniers) can't point to such a list.   ...or even one such agency or society with a contrary message and with any status or standing among climate-scientists.

Cyclical, yes.  Species come and go. It looks like ours and lots of others are going to go. I too am optimistic that the planet and its life will survive and carry-on.   ...with different species after the Anthropocene-Extinction.

Of course this is about likelihood, not certainty, but there's virtual unanimity among climate-scientists about it, even if no  one knows exactly which year will be humanity's last.

But yes, I'm more horrified by attrocities being committed now, and what happens to the victims, than about extinction sometime later.

But the number of Koalas being burned-alive in Australia is horrifying (but would be too even if the number were smaller), and that's due to our AGW.

8 M
Aquarius 22nd
Februarius 10th, 2020



On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 6:59 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

22♒13520 UCC

Michael

It depends what sources you look at. I have found many on both sides of the debate. But the important thing is not to argue about something we cannot be sure of or agree on, but rather to focus on what we CAN be sure of and can ALL agree on. I'm sure you'll agree that this common ground is 'pollution' and it's effects. We can all agree that it is bad to pollute the place we live and good to minimise as much as possible this pollution. That is what I'm focusing on. Then, either way, the outcome will be more positive for all of us. If the climate alarmists are right then reducing pollution will minimise the damage to the atmosphere and the climate. If the climate 'deniers' are right then the climate will go on changing in line with natural phenomenon such as the sun spot cycle and the planetary cycles of the Milankovitch theory.

The Yuga cycle theory is ancient for sure, but it suggests a CYCLE that leads to human consciousness, and the associated forming and collapse of civilisations, being cyclical rather than linear, which makes your point rather mute don't you think?

Yes, I'm also optimistic that the planet will survive and carry on, but I don't think any of us can really be sure about exactly what will happen the future, so I wouldn't like to make sweeping statements of such certainty about species. But it seems logical that the more we can reduce our impact on nature the more species will survive and thrive

Regards

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 3:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

Climate-scientists are virtually unanimous that the Milankovich cycles are going to be completely overwhelmed and made irrelevant by anthropogenic global-heating.

The Yuga cycles were designated before anthropogenic climate-change was started or expected.

The Earth and its life have survived a number of mass-extinctions, and they'll survive this Anthropocene-Extinction too.  New species will arise to replace the (many) extinct ones. The ecological-niches will be filled by new species
 



On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:27 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

20/11/20 UCC

Michael

Whilst I know you have come to share my aims of seasonal calendars helping to improve awareness of nature etc I have to disagree with your last paragraph

I would encourage you to study the Yuga cycle (which the UCC Year Number is derived from) and the Milankovitch Cycles theory of climate change

Whilst of course doing everything you can to reduce your pollution footprint and increase your positive impact on nature (such as crop growing and tree planting/conservation)

All the best

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 2:22 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

John--

I agree. Greater closeness to, respect for, and awareness of nature is a purpose for seasonal calendars, and a goal  of my proposed seasonal-calendars.

I propose them as a matter  of principle, regardless of whether people can actually be reached. 

Regrettably, it looks as if the Anthropocene-Extinction is underway and is going to fully happen.

7 Sa
Aquarius 20th
Februarius 8th, 2020

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Jamison Painter
This email originated from outside ECU.

I certainly would NOT oppose protecting our environment. Any sane man ought to want to do that. I do agree with Litmus, although unlike him, I don't classify anarchism with the left, as that is a rejection of ANY government, either of the Right OR Left.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 6:14 AM Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

23♒13520 UCC

Dear Michael & Jamison

I tend to agree with Jamison here

[apart from the "left wing" bit as I don't go in for those media designations of politics. I, and others, consider left and right in terms of 'Degree of Government/Ruler-ship' with the left then being "anarchy" in its true form and the right being "monarchy/dictatorship"]

The system is largely based on control through fear, so there is always something they want to frighten people with. Climate change is one such example of scaremongering that has been going on for years.

I also agree that, based on my research, the planet is not overcrowded, and this again is a myth perpetuated by the wealthy elites who wish to maintain their hegemony

Although having said all that we're way of topic now as far as calendars go so maybe we agree to disagree and leave it there...

Once again, let's not argue about things we can't prove either way, but rather focus on the common ground and minimise our pollution in all its forms as much as possible!

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/10/20 5:52 PM, Jamison Painter wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

MICHAEL:

The large number of supposedly important societies saying that humans are nearing extinction are all, every one of them, influenced by the Left Wing Nut Job environment of the universities, and, if they want to keep the money flowing, say exactly what they are told to say. The idea that humans are going go extinct soon cannot possibly be known with certainty, and the fact that there are 7 billion of us speaks against it. Nor is the planet overpopulated, as all of those people could fit into the State of Texas with room to spare.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 7:53 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Yes air--pollution is harming people now.  Hydrocarbons from half-combusted fuel, etc. But the scientific-community is virtually unanimous about anthropogenic global-warming (AGW), and that a mass-extinction, the Anthropocene-Extinction, is on the way.

They warn that we must stop the CO2 emissions immediately, and nothing of the sort is being done.

Wikipedia has a long, long list of prestigious scientific societies and govt-agencies that warn about AGW.  The AGWDs (anthropogenic-global-warming-deniers) can't point to such a list.   ...or even one such agency or society with a contrary message and with any status or standing among climate-scientists.

Cyclical, yes.  Species come and go. It looks like ours and lots of others are going to go. I too am optimistic that the planet and its life will survive and carry-on.   ...with different species after the Anthropocene-Extinction.

Of course this is about likelihood, not certainty, but there's virtual unanimity among climate-scientists about it, even if no  one knows exactly which year will be humanity's last.

But yes, I'm more horrified by attrocities being committed now, and what happens to the victims, than about extinction sometime later.

But the number of Koalas being burned-alive in Australia is horrifying (but would be too even if the number were smaller), and that's due to our AGW.

8 M
Aquarius 22nd
Februarius 10th, 2020



On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 6:59 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

22♒13520 UCC

Michael

It depends what sources you look at. I have found many on both sides of the debate. But the important thing is not to argue about something we cannot be sure of or agree on, but rather to focus on what we CAN be sure of and can ALL agree on. I'm sure you'll agree that this common ground is 'pollution' and it's effects. We can all agree that it is bad to pollute the place we live and good to minimise as much as possible this pollution. That is what I'm focusing on. Then, either way, the outcome will be more positive for all of us. If the climate alarmists are right then reducing pollution will minimise the damage to the atmosphere and the climate. If the climate 'deniers' are right then the climate will go on changing in line with natural phenomenon such as the sun spot cycle and the planetary cycles of the Milankovitch theory.

The Yuga cycle theory is ancient for sure, but it suggests a CYCLE that leads to human consciousness, and the associated forming and collapse of civilisations, being cyclical rather than linear, which makes your point rather mute don't you think?

Yes, I'm also optimistic that the planet will survive and carry on, but I don't think any of us can really be sure about exactly what will happen the future, so I wouldn't like to make sweeping statements of such certainty about species. But it seems logical that the more we can reduce our impact on nature the more species will survive and thrive

Regards

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 3:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

Climate-scientists are virtually unanimous that the Milankovich cycles are going to be completely overwhelmed and made irrelevant by anthropogenic global-heating.

The Yuga cycles were designated before anthropogenic climate-change was started or expected.

The Earth and its life have survived a number of mass-extinctions, and they'll survive this Anthropocene-Extinction too.  New species will arise to replace the (many) extinct ones. The ecological-niches will be filled by new species
 



On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:27 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

20/11/20 UCC

Michael

Whilst I know you have come to share my aims of seasonal calendars helping to improve awareness of nature etc I have to disagree with your last paragraph

I would encourage you to study the Yuga cycle (which the UCC Year Number is derived from) and the Milankovitch Cycles theory of climate change

Whilst of course doing everything you can to reduce your pollution footprint and increase your positive impact on nature (such as crop growing and tree planting/conservation)

All the best

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 2:22 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

John--

I agree. Greater closeness to, respect for, and awareness of nature is a purpose for seasonal calendars, and a goal  of my proposed seasonal-calendars.

I propose them as a matter  of principle, regardless of whether people can actually be reached. 

Regrettably, it looks as if the Anthropocene-Extinction is underway and is going to fully happen.

7 Sa
Aquarius 20th
Februarius 8th, 2020

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Litmus A Freeman
This email originated from outside ECU.

23♒20 UCC

Jamison

Yes I agree, I mean 'left' in terms of 0% government to 'right' in terms of 100% government

Please see slide 19 on this page:

https://projectfreeman.com/stoptax-2-noticetolocalcouncil.htm

(Direct link: https://projectfreeman.com/Project%20Freeman-Phase-3-B-2-2-Notice%20To%20Local%20Council/Slide19.jpg)

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/11/20 12:27 PM, Jamison Painter wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

I certainly would NOT oppose protecting our environment. Any sane man ought to want to do that. I do agree with Litmus, although unlike him, I don't classify anarchism with the left, as that is a rejection of ANY government, either of the Right OR Left.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 6:14 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

23♒13520 UCC

Dear Michael & Jamison

I tend to agree with Jamison here

[apart from the "left wing" bit as I don't go in for those media designations of politics. I, and others, consider left and right in terms of 'Degree of Government/Ruler-ship' with the left then being "anarchy" in its true form and the right being "monarchy/dictatorship"]

The system is largely based on control through fear, so there is always something they want to frighten people with. Climate change is one such example of scaremongering that has been going on for years.

I also agree that, based on my research, the planet is not overcrowded, and this again is a myth perpetuated by the wealthy elites who wish to maintain their hegemony

Although having said all that we're way of topic now as far as calendars go so maybe we agree to disagree and leave it there...

Once again, let's not argue about things we can't prove either way, but rather focus on the common ground and minimise our pollution in all its forms as much as possible!

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/10/20 5:52 PM, Jamison Painter wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

MICHAEL:

The large number of supposedly important societies saying that humans are nearing extinction are all, every one of them, influenced by the Left Wing Nut Job environment of the universities, and, if they want to keep the money flowing, say exactly what they are told to say. The idea that humans are going go extinct soon cannot possibly be known with certainty, and the fact that there are 7 billion of us speaks against it. Nor is the planet overpopulated, as all of those people could fit into the State of Texas with room to spare.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 7:53 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Yes air--pollution is harming people now.  Hydrocarbons from half-combusted fuel, etc. But the scientific-community is virtually unanimous about anthropogenic global-warming (AGW), and that a mass-extinction, the Anthropocene-Extinction, is on the way.

They warn that we must stop the CO2 emissions immediately, and nothing of the sort is being done.

Wikipedia has a long, long list of prestigious scientific societies and govt-agencies that warn about AGW.  The AGWDs (anthropogenic-global-warming-deniers) can't point to such a list.   ...or even one such agency or society with a contrary message and with any status or standing among climate-scientists.

Cyclical, yes.  Species come and go. It looks like ours and lots of others are going to go. I too am optimistic that the planet and its life will survive and carry-on.   ...with different species after the Anthropocene-Extinction.

Of course this is about likelihood, not certainty, but there's virtual unanimity among climate-scientists about it, even if no  one knows exactly which year will be humanity's last.

But yes, I'm more horrified by attrocities being committed now, and what happens to the victims, than about extinction sometime later.

But the number of Koalas being burned-alive in Australia is horrifying (but would be too even if the number were smaller), and that's due to our AGW.

8 M
Aquarius 22nd
Februarius 10th, 2020



On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 6:59 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

22♒13520 UCC

Michael

It depends what sources you look at. I have found many on both sides of the debate. But the important thing is not to argue about something we cannot be sure of or agree on, but rather to focus on what we CAN be sure of and can ALL agree on. I'm sure you'll agree that this common ground is 'pollution' and it's effects. We can all agree that it is bad to pollute the place we live and good to minimise as much as possible this pollution. That is what I'm focusing on. Then, either way, the outcome will be more positive for all of us. If the climate alarmists are right then reducing pollution will minimise the damage to the atmosphere and the climate. If the climate 'deniers' are right then the climate will go on changing in line with natural phenomenon such as the sun spot cycle and the planetary cycles of the Milankovitch theory.

The Yuga cycle theory is ancient for sure, but it suggests a CYCLE that leads to human consciousness, and the associated forming and collapse of civilisations, being cyclical rather than linear, which makes your point rather mute don't you think?

Yes, I'm also optimistic that the planet will survive and carry on, but I don't think any of us can really be sure about exactly what will happen the future, so I wouldn't like to make sweeping statements of such certainty about species. But it seems logical that the more we can reduce our impact on nature the more species will survive and thrive

Regards

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 3:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

Climate-scientists are virtually unanimous that the Milankovich cycles are going to be completely overwhelmed and made irrelevant by anthropogenic global-heating.

The Yuga cycles were designated before anthropogenic climate-change was started or expected.

The Earth and its life have survived a number of mass-extinctions, and they'll survive this Anthropocene-Extinction too.  New species will arise to replace the (many) extinct ones. The ecological-niches will be filled by new species
 



On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:27 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

20/11/20 UCC

Michael

Whilst I know you have come to share my aims of seasonal calendars helping to improve awareness of nature etc I have to disagree with your last paragraph

I would encourage you to study the Yuga cycle (which the UCC Year Number is derived from) and the Milankovitch Cycles theory of climate change

Whilst of course doing everything you can to reduce your pollution footprint and increase your positive impact on nature (such as crop growing and tree planting/conservation)

All the best

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 2:22 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

John--

I agree. Greater closeness to, respect for, and awareness of nature is a purpose for seasonal calendars, and a goal  of my proposed seasonal-calendars.

I propose them as a matter  of principle, regardless of whether people can actually be reached. 

Regrettably, it looks as if the Anthropocene-Extinction is underway and is going to fully happen.

7 Sa
Aquarius 20th
Februarius 8th, 2020

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Litmus A Freeman
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

I don't know what Jameson said, because I've set my mailer to route his posts to trash.

But, from what you said,  it sounds as if he's on his political rant again.

Of course I agree that it isn't necessary for us at this calendar forum to debate AGW.

But I just wanted to emphasize that it is NOT a matter on which scientists or climatologists in particular, are evenly-divided. Not even close.  The consensus among scientists, and particularly among climate-scientists is virtually unanimous that AGW is happening, and is going to be disastrous to humans and other current species.

...and that the harm has already begun, bigtime. But this is only the preview, a hint of what's on the way.

The corporate interests aren't trying to convince us of AGW. They're making humungous bucks from petroleum.

As I said, what's currently happening to people and other animals, not just from AGW (but more and more from that too), concerns me more than our eventual extinction. Mass-extinctions are nothing new, and are no big deal for the Earth. As I said Earth has survived mass-extinctions before, and will do just fine after this one, the Antrhopocene-Extinction.

8 Tu
Aquarius 23rd
Februarius 11th, 2020


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Jamison Painter
This email originated from outside ECU.

MICHAEL: 

First off, someone who is such an abysmally stupid person as to not know how to spell my name, even though I, and others, have written it out several times, is what I would classify as a person with whom speaking is unnecessary. That being said, you are stupidly incorrect, as you always are. It is not a political "rant" to acknowledge that universities and other educational institutions have been profoundly affected by the Left, and do what they are told to do. The fact that you are too stupid to note that reality does NOT, in any way, indicate that I am ranting. It indicates that I am in touch with reality, and you, stupidly enough, are not.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 9:16 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

I don't know what Jameson said, because I've set my mailer to route his posts to trash.

But, from what you said,  it sounds as if he's on his political rant again.

Of course I agree that it isn't necessary for us at this calendar forum to debate AGW.

But I just wanted to emphasize that it is NOT a matter on which scientists or climatologists in particular, are evenly-divided. Not even close.  The consensus among scientists, and particularly among climate-scientists is virtually unanimous that AGW is happening, and is going to be disastrous to humans and other current species.

...and that the harm has already begun, bigtime. But this is only the preview, a hint of what's on the way.

The corporate interests aren't trying to convince us of AGW. They're making humungous bucks from petroleum.

As I said, what's currently happening to people and other animals, not just from AGW (but more and more from that too), concerns me more than our eventual extinction. Mass-extinctions are nothing new, and are no big deal for the Earth. As I said Earth has survived mass-extinctions before, and will do just fine after this one, the Antrhopocene-Extinction.

8 Tu
Aquarius 23rd
Februarius 11th, 2020


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Jamison Painter
This email originated from outside ECU.

Incidentally, MICHAEL, my Wife and I are both teachers. She teaches First Grade, and I teach both English and Spanish to immigrants. I suspect, Moron, that she and I know FAR more about the educational institutions in America, and around the world, than you do. I recommend that you shut that hole in your face, sit down, and learn something, my young Padawan.

Jamison E. Painter, MA 

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 3:29 PM Jamison Painter <[hidden email]> wrote:
MICHAEL: 

First off, someone who is such an abysmally stupid person as to not know how to spell my name, even though I, and others, have written it out several times, is what I would classify as a person with whom speaking is unnecessary. That being said, you are stupidly incorrect, as you always are. It is not a political "rant" to acknowledge that universities and other educational institutions have been profoundly affected by the Left, and do what they are told to do. The fact that you are too stupid to note that reality does NOT, in any way, indicate that I am ranting. It indicates that I am in touch with reality, and you, stupidly enough, are not.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 9:16 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

I don't know what Jameson said, because I've set my mailer to route his posts to trash.

But, from what you said,  it sounds as if he's on his political rant again.

Of course I agree that it isn't necessary for us at this calendar forum to debate AGW.

But I just wanted to emphasize that it is NOT a matter on which scientists or climatologists in particular, are evenly-divided. Not even close.  The consensus among scientists, and particularly among climate-scientists is virtually unanimous that AGW is happening, and is going to be disastrous to humans and other current species.

...and that the harm has already begun, bigtime. But this is only the preview, a hint of what's on the way.

The corporate interests aren't trying to convince us of AGW. They're making humungous bucks from petroleum.

As I said, what's currently happening to people and other animals, not just from AGW (but more and more from that too), concerns me more than our eventual extinction. Mass-extinctions are nothing new, and are no big deal for the Earth. As I said Earth has survived mass-extinctions before, and will do just fine after this one, the Antrhopocene-Extinction.

8 Tu
Aquarius 23rd
Februarius 11th, 2020


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Jamison Painter
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

LITMUS:

Of course, you are free to reject the standard designations. But please understand that the media did not invent the terms Right and Left. In France, during the Revolution, in the National Assembly, persons who were monarchists, or otherwise fairly conservative (anything ranging from Absolute Monarchy to Constitutional Monarchy,  or very conservative Republicanism that maintained the status of the Church and the economic order) sat on the right side of the building. Persons who were more revolutionary, from moderately conservative Republicanism to radical quasi-Communist ideas, to yes, even anarchy (although that was rare), sat on the left side of the chamber. For whatever reason, those terms stuck.

Jamison E. Painter, MA 

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 9:16 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

I don't know what Jameson said, because I've set my mailer to route his posts to trash.

But, from what you said,  it sounds as if he's on his political rant again.

Of course I agree that it isn't necessary for us at this calendar forum to debate AGW.

But I just wanted to emphasize that it is NOT a matter on which scientists or climatologists in particular, are evenly-divided. Not even close.  The consensus among scientists, and particularly among climate-scientists is virtually unanimous that AGW is happening, and is going to be disastrous to humans and other current species.

...and that the harm has already begun, bigtime. But this is only the preview, a hint of what's on the way.

The corporate interests aren't trying to convince us of AGW. They're making humungous bucks from petroleum.

As I said, what's currently happening to people and other animals, not just from AGW (but more and more from that too), concerns me more than our eventual extinction. Mass-extinctions are nothing new, and are no big deal for the Earth. As I said Earth has survived mass-extinctions before, and will do just fine after this one, the Antrhopocene-Extinction.

8 Tu
Aquarius 23rd
Februarius 11th, 2020


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Amos Shapir-2
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Hi Michael and calendar people,

This is off-topic, but when someone who claims to be a teacher uses language he wouldn't allow his students to use in class, on a mailing list which is essentially technical,
that shows something about the state of education in the USA.  (Or maybe he does allow it in class?  That makes it even worse)


On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 5:16 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

I don't know what Jameson said, because I've set my mailer to route his posts to trash.

But, from what you said,  it sounds as if he's on his political rant again.

Of course I agree that it isn't necessary for us at this calendar forum to debate AGW.

But I just wanted to emphasize that it is NOT a matter on which scientists or climatologists in particular, are evenly-divided. Not even close.  The consensus among scientists, and particularly among climate-scientists is virtually unanimous that AGW is happening, and is going to be disastrous to humans and other current species.

...and that the harm has already begun, bigtime. But this is only the preview, a hint of what's on the way.

The corporate interests aren't trying to convince us of AGW. They're making humungous bucks from petroleum.

As I said, what's currently happening to people and other animals, not just from AGW (but more and more from that too), concerns me more than our eventual extinction. Mass-extinctions are nothing new, and are no big deal for the Earth. As I said Earth has survived mass-extinctions before, and will do just fine after this one, the Antrhopocene-Extinction.

8 Tu
Aquarius 23rd
Februarius 11th, 2020




--
Amos Shapir
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Jamison Painter
This email originated from outside ECU.

Amos, grow up. I teach adults. Look, someone is stupid, they need to be in formed that they are stupid. If someone is a moron, it helps to inform them of that as well.

What is stupidity? It is the demonstration of a complete lack of intelligence (it is NOT ignorance, which can be corrected through education) on a par with having the IQ of a houseplant. Michael has demonstrated that to be the case in virtually every post he has written. In addition, he enjoys being rude and disrespectful. Therefore, he must want to get it in return. It really is that simple. 

You will note carefully that I have not addressed anyone else on the list, whether I agree with them or not, so harshly. Why would I? If you are polite to me, I shall return the favour. If you are nasty to me, as Michael is, the favour likewise is returned, and I take no prisoners. I go for the jugular. I admit, that is harsh, but it is ultimately for the best.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 1:31 AM Amos Shapir <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Hi Michael and calendar people,

This is off-topic, but when someone who claims to be a teacher uses language he wouldn't allow his students to use in class, on a mailing list which is essentially technical,
that shows something about the state of education in the USA.  (Or maybe he does allow it in class?  That makes it even worse)


On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 5:16 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

I don't know what Jameson said, because I've set my mailer to route his posts to trash.

But, from what you said,  it sounds as if he's on his political rant again.

Of course I agree that it isn't necessary for us at this calendar forum to debate AGW.

But I just wanted to emphasize that it is NOT a matter on which scientists or climatologists in particular, are evenly-divided. Not even close.  The consensus among scientists, and particularly among climate-scientists is virtually unanimous that AGW is happening, and is going to be disastrous to humans and other current species.

...and that the harm has already begun, bigtime. But this is only the preview, a hint of what's on the way.

The corporate interests aren't trying to convince us of AGW. They're making humungous bucks from petroleum.

As I said, what's currently happening to people and other animals, not just from AGW (but more and more from that too), concerns me more than our eventual extinction. Mass-extinctions are nothing new, and are no big deal for the Earth. As I said Earth has survived mass-extinctions before, and will do just fine after this one, the Antrhopocene-Extinction.

8 Tu
Aquarius 23rd
Februarius 11th, 2020




--
Amos Shapir
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Jamison Painter
This email originated from outside ECU.

Oh, and everyone, I apologize for the two typos in my post to Amos. Typing on a phone keyboard is a bear!

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 4:42 AM Jamison Painter <[hidden email]> wrote:
Amos, grow up. I teach adults. Look, someone is stupid, they need to be in formed that they are stupid. If someone is a moron, it helps to inform them of that as well.

What is stupidity? It is the demonstration of a complete lack of intelligence (it is NOT ignorance, which can be corrected through education) on a par with having the IQ of a houseplant. Michael has demonstrated that to be the case in virtually every post he has written. In addition, he enjoys being rude and disrespectful. Therefore, he must want to get it in return. It really is that simple. 

You will note carefully that I have not addressed anyone else on the list, whether I agree with them or not, so harshly. Why would I? If you are polite to me, I shall return the favour. If you are nasty to me, as Michael is, the favour likewise is returned, and I take no prisoners. I go for the jugular. I admit, that is harsh, but it is ultimately for the best.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020, 1:31 AM Amos Shapir <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Hi Michael and calendar people,

This is off-topic, but when someone who claims to be a teacher uses language he wouldn't allow his students to use in class, on a mailing list which is essentially technical,
that shows something about the state of education in the USA.  (Or maybe he does allow it in class?  That makes it even worse)


On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 5:16 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

I don't know what Jameson said, because I've set my mailer to route his posts to trash.

But, from what you said,  it sounds as if he's on his political rant again.

Of course I agree that it isn't necessary for us at this calendar forum to debate AGW.

But I just wanted to emphasize that it is NOT a matter on which scientists or climatologists in particular, are evenly-divided. Not even close.  The consensus among scientists, and particularly among climate-scientists is virtually unanimous that AGW is happening, and is going to be disastrous to humans and other current species.

...and that the harm has already begun, bigtime. But this is only the preview, a hint of what's on the way.

The corporate interests aren't trying to convince us of AGW. They're making humungous bucks from petroleum.

As I said, what's currently happening to people and other animals, not just from AGW (but more and more from that too), concerns me more than our eventual extinction. Mass-extinctions are nothing new, and are no big deal for the Earth. As I said Earth has survived mass-extinctions before, and will do just fine after this one, the Antrhopocene-Extinction.

8 Tu
Aquarius 23rd
Februarius 11th, 2020




--
Amos Shapir
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Jamison Painter
In reply to this post by Litmus A Freeman
This email originated from outside ECU.

I looked at your page on Government, LITMUS. Actually, the USA and the UK do NOT claim, and never HAVE claimed, that they are Direct Democracies. That may work fine for a Greek City-State, where decisions can (and WERE) be made by a direct vote of citizens. The USA and Britain, on the other hand, claim to be Republics, wherein the citizens vote for people who will then make decisions for them, theoretically in line with the views  of their constituents. Actually, the USA claims to be a Federal Republic, wherein all levels of Government, from village to nation, function as a Republic. Britain claims to be a Constitutional Monarchy, which she certainly is, but also elects the Parliament in a Republican manner. But NEITHER State claims to be a Direct Democracy. The USA does have a FEW elements of Direct Democracy, wherein, in the State of California, the citizens have the right to vote on just about all proposed laws that affect them in any way. I think Alabama is that way as well, but only two States are like that at all. In the other 48, the citizens can only vote on certain things, mostly fiduciary. 

Now, whether the USA is ACTUALLY a Republic de facto, can be argued, but it certainly is so de jure. Britain is also a Representative Democracy (NOT a Direct Democracy like Ancient Athens) de jure. Again, one may argue legitimately whether or not it is de facto. That a legitimate question for BOTH countries, and quite a few others, France, Germany, and so-forth being first on the list of inquiry regarding that topic.

So what I am saying is that, although I respect you immensely, I am obligated to challenge your views on this. No hard feelings, over this or any other matter, I hope.

Jamison E.  Painter,  MA 

24 Pluviôse An CCXXVIII, Knotweed

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 6:36 AM Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

23♒20 UCC

Jamison

Yes I agree, I mean 'left' in terms of 0% government to 'right' in terms of 100% government

Please see slide 19 on this page:

https://projectfreeman.com/stoptax-2-noticetolocalcouncil.htm

(Direct link: https://projectfreeman.com/Project%20Freeman-Phase-3-B-2-2-Notice%20To%20Local%20Council/Slide19.jpg)

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/11/20 12:27 PM, Jamison Painter wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

I certainly would NOT oppose protecting our environment. Any sane man ought to want to do that. I do agree with Litmus, although unlike him, I don't classify anarchism with the left, as that is a rejection of ANY government, either of the Right OR Left.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 6:14 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

23♒13520 UCC

Dear Michael & Jamison

I tend to agree with Jamison here

[apart from the "left wing" bit as I don't go in for those media designations of politics. I, and others, consider left and right in terms of 'Degree of Government/Ruler-ship' with the left then being "anarchy" in its true form and the right being "monarchy/dictatorship"]

The system is largely based on control through fear, so there is always something they want to frighten people with. Climate change is one such example of scaremongering that has been going on for years.

I also agree that, based on my research, the planet is not overcrowded, and this again is a myth perpetuated by the wealthy elites who wish to maintain their hegemony

Although having said all that we're way of topic now as far as calendars go so maybe we agree to disagree and leave it there...

Once again, let's not argue about things we can't prove either way, but rather focus on the common ground and minimise our pollution in all its forms as much as possible!

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/10/20 5:52 PM, Jamison Painter wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

MICHAEL:

The large number of supposedly important societies saying that humans are nearing extinction are all, every one of them, influenced by the Left Wing Nut Job environment of the universities, and, if they want to keep the money flowing, say exactly what they are told to say. The idea that humans are going go extinct soon cannot possibly be known with certainty, and the fact that there are 7 billion of us speaks against it. Nor is the planet overpopulated, as all of those people could fit into the State of Texas with room to spare.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 7:53 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Yes air--pollution is harming people now.  Hydrocarbons from half-combusted fuel, etc. But the scientific-community is virtually unanimous about anthropogenic global-warming (AGW), and that a mass-extinction, the Anthropocene-Extinction, is on the way.

They warn that we must stop the CO2 emissions immediately, and nothing of the sort is being done.

Wikipedia has a long, long list of prestigious scientific societies and govt-agencies that warn about AGW.  The AGWDs (anthropogenic-global-warming-deniers) can't point to such a list.   ...or even one such agency or society with a contrary message and with any status or standing among climate-scientists.

Cyclical, yes.  Species come and go. It looks like ours and lots of others are going to go. I too am optimistic that the planet and its life will survive and carry-on.   ...with different species after the Anthropocene-Extinction.

Of course this is about likelihood, not certainty, but there's virtual unanimity among climate-scientists about it, even if no  one knows exactly which year will be humanity's last.

But yes, I'm more horrified by attrocities being committed now, and what happens to the victims, than about extinction sometime later.

But the number of Koalas being burned-alive in Australia is horrifying (but would be too even if the number were smaller), and that's due to our AGW.

8 M
Aquarius 22nd
Februarius 10th, 2020



On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 6:59 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

22♒13520 UCC

Michael

It depends what sources you look at. I have found many on both sides of the debate. But the important thing is not to argue about something we cannot be sure of or agree on, but rather to focus on what we CAN be sure of and can ALL agree on. I'm sure you'll agree that this common ground is 'pollution' and it's effects. We can all agree that it is bad to pollute the place we live and good to minimise as much as possible this pollution. That is what I'm focusing on. Then, either way, the outcome will be more positive for all of us. If the climate alarmists are right then reducing pollution will minimise the damage to the atmosphere and the climate. If the climate 'deniers' are right then the climate will go on changing in line with natural phenomenon such as the sun spot cycle and the planetary cycles of the Milankovitch theory.

The Yuga cycle theory is ancient for sure, but it suggests a CYCLE that leads to human consciousness, and the associated forming and collapse of civilisations, being cyclical rather than linear, which makes your point rather mute don't you think?

Yes, I'm also optimistic that the planet will survive and carry on, but I don't think any of us can really be sure about exactly what will happen the future, so I wouldn't like to make sweeping statements of such certainty about species. But it seems logical that the more we can reduce our impact on nature the more species will survive and thrive

Regards

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 3:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

Climate-scientists are virtually unanimous that the Milankovich cycles are going to be completely overwhelmed and made irrelevant by anthropogenic global-heating.

The Yuga cycles were designated before anthropogenic climate-change was started or expected.

The Earth and its life have survived a number of mass-extinctions, and they'll survive this Anthropocene-Extinction too.  New species will arise to replace the (many) extinct ones. The ecological-niches will be filled by new species
 



On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:27 AM Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

20/11/20 UCC

Michael

Whilst I know you have come to share my aims of seasonal calendars helping to improve awareness of nature etc I have to disagree with your last paragraph

I would encourage you to study the Yuga cycle (which the UCC Year Number is derived from) and the Milankovitch Cycles theory of climate change

Whilst of course doing everything you can to reduce your pollution footprint and increase your positive impact on nature (such as crop growing and tree planting/conservation)

All the best

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/8/20 2:22 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

John--

I agree. Greater closeness to, respect for, and awareness of nature is a purpose for seasonal calendars, and a goal  of my proposed seasonal-calendars.

I propose them as a matter  of principle, regardless of whether people can actually be reached. 

Regrettably, it looks as if the Anthropocene-Extinction is underway and is going to fully happen.

7 Sa
Aquarius 20th
Februarius 8th, 2020

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CALNDR-L Digest - 5 Feb 2020 to 6 Feb 2020 (#2020-27)

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

25♒20 UCC

Hey Michael

Yes I got your point thanks

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/11/20 3:14 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus--

I don't know what Jameson said, because I've set my mailer to route his posts to trash.

But, from what you said,  it sounds as if he's on his political rant again.

Of course I agree that it isn't necessary for us at this calendar forum to debate AGW.

But I just wanted to emphasize that it is NOT a matter on which scientists or climatologists in particular, are evenly-divided. Not even close.  The consensus among scientists, and particularly among climate-scientists is virtually unanimous that AGW is happening, and is going to be disastrous to humans and other current species.

...and that the harm has already begun, bigtime. But this is only the preview, a hint of what's on the way.

The corporate interests aren't trying to convince us of AGW. They're making humungous bucks from petroleum.

As I said, what's currently happening to people and other animals, not just from AGW (but more and more from that too), concerns me more than our eventual extinction. Mass-extinctions are nothing new, and are no big deal for the Earth. As I said Earth has survived mass-extinctions before, and will do just fine after this one, the Antrhopocene-Extinction.

8 Tu
Aquarius 23rd
Februarius 11th, 2020


12