Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
66 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Michael Ossipoff
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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Jamison Painter
This email originated from outside ECU.

And MICHAEL'S post here, with its verbal abuse of KARL, who, even if he IS wrong, and I do not know that he is, does not deserve to be verbally brutalised, just proves that Little Mikey can dish it out, but he can't take it when it comes back. What an asshole.

Jamison E. Painter, MA

16 Pluviôse An CCXXVIII, Box Tree.

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020, 1:17 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

k.palmen@btinternet.com
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
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]>
To: [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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Michael Ossipoff
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] <[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]>
To: [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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Karl

IMO, this issue was first studied by Omar Khayyam Did he leave any commensarues on the matter of ecliptic months that have come down to us?

WalterZiobro




On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 k.palmen <[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]>
To: [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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

k.palmen@btinternet.com
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
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] <[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]>
To: [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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

k.palmen@btinternet.com
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] <[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]>
To: [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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by k.palmen@btinternet.com
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
On 2/6/20 11:14 AM, [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] 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] <[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]> To: [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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by k.palmen@btinternet.com
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
On 2/6/20 12:53 PM, [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] [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] <[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]> To: [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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

k.palmen@btinternet.com
In reply to this post by k.palmen@btinternet.com
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] <[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]>
To: [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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by k.palmen@btinternet.com
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

k.palmen@btinternet.com
In reply to this post by Litmus A Freeman
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Litmus and Calendar People


This is not a proposal for a specific calendar, but a method better than Michael's of making months occur close the their corresponding ecliptic-months or measuring how close other months lengths are. The year start rule, which can be a leap year rule and rule specifying day year 1 begins is not specified, but is assumed to place the new year close to the corresponding ecliptic-month start, which is the March equinox.


Karl


Friday Beta March 2020




------ Original Message ------
From: "Litmus UCC Zone" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 15:07
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
On 2/6/20 11:14 AM, [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] 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] <[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]> To: [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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

k.palmen@btinternet.com
In reply to this post by Litmus A Freeman
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Litmus and Calendar People


The year start rule (which may include a leap year rule) is not specified, but is assumed to make the year begin close to the March equinox. The best possible is the Iranian year start rule, which places the year start within 12 hours of the March equinox. For any given year, the time that the year starts before the equinox needs to be added to each of the 12 month errors to get the total error for the months of that year.


This additional error is the price paid for getting every month to have the same number of days every year, except the last month, which may take a leap day.


Karl


Friday Beta February 2020




------ Original Message ------
From: "Litmus UCC Zone" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 15:15
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
On 2/6/20 12:53 PM, [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] [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] <[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]> To: [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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Date at start of Subject Field Re: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

k.palmen@btinternet.com
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Litmus and Calendar People


Litmus, please do not place your calendar date at the start of the subject. This makes impossible to sort past notes by topic. Instead place it at the end of the E-mail like I do.


This time I also give a link to that calendar.


Karl


Friday Beta February 2020

https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/wkmth.htm




------ Original Message ------
From: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
To: "East Carolina University Calendar discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, 7 Feb, 2020 At 10:42
Subject: Re: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Dear Litmus and Calendar People


The year start rule (which may include a leap year rule) is not specified, but is assumed to make the year begin close to the March equinox. The best possible is the Iranian year start rule, which places the year start within 12 hours of the March equinox. For any given year, the time that the year starts before the equinox needs to be added to each of the 12 month errors to get the total error for the months of that year.


This additional error is the price paid for getting every month to have the same number of days every year, except the last month, which may take a leap day.


Karl


Friday Beta February 2020



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

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

Dear Karl et al

There are two ecliptic-month calendars in actual use today (three if you include the Chinese solar terms), the Indian and Iranian calendars The main difference is that the Indian calendar is rule based and linked to the Gregorian calendar, while the Iranian (and Chinese solar terms) is based on astronomical observation The Iranian is clearly more accurate to the actual apparent movement of the Sun relative to the ecliptic, while the Indian months are a convenient approximation IMO, the Indian calendar could be improved to make it more accurate by using a 33 year leap rule and shifting the month lengths about every 1700 or 1800 years

WalterZiobro




On Friday, February 7, 2020 k.palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Litmus and Calendar People


The year start rule (which may include a leap year rule) is not specified, but is assumed to make the year begin close to the March equinox. The best possible is the Iranian year start rule, which places the year start within 12 hours of the March equinox. For any given year, the time that the year starts before the equinox needs to be added to each of the 12 month errors to get the total error for the months of that year.


This additional error is the price paid for getting every month to have the same number of days every year, except the last month, which may take a leap day.


Karl


Friday Beta February 2020




------ Original Message ------
From: "Litmus UCC Zone" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 15:15
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
On 2/6/20 12:53 PM, [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] [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] <[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]> To: [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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by k.palmen@btinternet.com
This email originated from outside ECU.

19 Aquarius♒ 13520 UCC


Dear Karl & Co


Yes, I remember this aspect of the Iranian calendar from when I was first working on the UCC, I just wondered what your chosen start time was


Thanks


Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/7/20 10:42 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Litmus and Calendar People


The year start rule (which may include a leap year rule) is not specified, but is assumed to make the year begin close to the March equinox. The best possible is the Iranian year start rule, which places the year start within 12 hours of the March equinox. For any given year, the time that the year starts before the equinox needs to be added to each of the 12 month errors to get the total error for the months of that year.


This additional error is the price paid for getting every month to have the same number of days every year, except the last month, which may take a leap day.


Karl


Friday Beta February 2020


------ Original Message ------ From: "Litmus UCC Zone" [hidden email] To: [hidden email] Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 15:15 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
On 2/6/20 12:53 PM, [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] [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] <[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]> To: [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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Date at start of Subject Field Re: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by k.palmen@btinternet.com
This email originated from outside ECU.

19♒20 UCC


Dear Karl & Co


How do you sort past notes by topic when replies start with "Re: "?


Putting the UCC date in the subject line is the only way I can sort and find emails by UCC date and is helpful to me for that as otherwise I have to convert from Gregorian dates all the time


I think most email apps/programmes will show the "thread" of emails with all the replies originating from one original right?


Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/7/20 10:53 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Litmus and Calendar People


Litmus, please do not place your calendar date at the start of the subject. This makes impossible to sort past notes by topic. Instead place it at the end of the E-mail like I do.


This time I also give a link to that calendar.


Karl


Friday Beta February 2020

https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/wkmth.htm


------ Original Message ------ From: [hidden email] [hidden email] To: "East Carolina University Calendar discussion List" [hidden email] Sent: Friday, 7 Feb, 2020 At 10:42 Subject: Re: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar
Dear Litmus and Calendar People

The year start rule (which may include a leap year rule) is not specified, but is assumed to make the year begin close to the March equinox. The best possible is the Iranian year start rule, which places the year start within 12 hours of the March equinox. For any given year, the time that the year starts before the equinox needs to be added to each of the 12 month errors to get the total error for the months of that year.

This additional error is the price paid for getting every month to have the same number of days every year, except the last month, which may take a leap day.

Karl

Friday Beta February 2020

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

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

19♒20 UCC

Dear Walter & Co

Maybe you mean "There are two ecliptic-month calendars in actual  mass use today", since the UCC is also a type of ecliptic month calendar and is in actual use today, but obviously not by anywhere near as many people as the other two you quote! ;)

Cheers, Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/7/20 11:48 AM, Walter J Ziobro wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Karl et al

There are two ecliptic-month calendars in actual use today (three if you include the Chinese solar terms), the Indian and Iranian calendars The main difference is that the Indian calendar is rule based and linked to the Gregorian calendar, while the Iranian (and Chinese solar terms) is based on astronomical observation The Iranian is clearly more accurate to the actual apparent movement of the Sun relative to the ecliptic, while the Indian months are a convenient approximation IMO, the Indian calendar could be improved to make it more accurate by using a 33 year leap rule and shifting the month lengths about every 1700 or 1800 years

WalterZiobro




On Friday, February 7, 2020 k.palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Litmus and Calendar People


The year start rule (which may include a leap year rule) is not specified, but is assumed to make the year begin close to the March equinox. The best possible is the Iranian year start rule, which places the year start within 12 hours of the March equinox. For any given year, the time that the year starts before the equinox needs to be added to each of the 12 month errors to get the total error for the months of that year.


This additional error is the price paid for getting every month to have the same number of days every year, except the last month, which may take a leap day.


Karl


Friday Beta February 2020


------ Original Message ------ From: "Litmus UCC Zone" [hidden email] To: [hidden email] Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 15:15 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
On 2/6/20 12:53 PM, [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] [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] <[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]> To: [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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by k.palmen@btinternet.com
This email originated from outside ECU.

Karl:




On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 5:34 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Litmus and Calendar People


This is not a proposal for a specific calendar, but a method better than Michael's of making months occur close the their corresponding ecliptic-months or measuring how close other months lengths are.


...but you don't have a specific calendar or set of month-lengths to specify.

If you want to say that your way is better, then you need to specify your way.

7 F
Aquarius 19th
Februarius 7th, 2020

The year start rule, which can be a leap year rule and rule specifying day year 1 begins is not specified, but is assumed to place the new year close to the corresponding ecliptic-month start, which is the March equinox.


Karl


Friday Beta March 2020




------ Original Message ------
From: "Litmus UCC Zone" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 15:07
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
On 2/6/20 11:14 AM, [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] 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] <[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]> To: [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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 13520.11.18 - Re: Reply re: Ecliptic-Months Calendar

Litmus A Freeman
This email originated from outside ECU.

19 Aquarius♒ 13520 UCC

Dear Michael

Nice to see that our dates are aligned at this time of the year :)

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar (UCC)
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 2/7/20 5:43 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Karl:




On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 5:34 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Litmus and Calendar People


This is not a proposal for a specific calendar, but a method better than Michael's of making months occur close the their corresponding ecliptic-months or measuring how close other months lengths are.


...but you don't have a specific calendar or set of month-lengths to specify.

If you want to say that your way is better, then you need to specify your way.

7 F
Aquarius 19th
Februarius 7th, 2020

The year start rule, which can be a leap year rule and rule specifying day year 1 begins is not specified, but is assumed to place the new year close to the corresponding ecliptic-month start, which is the March equinox.


Karl


Friday Beta March 2020


------ Original Message ------ From: "Litmus UCC Zone" [hidden email] To: [hidden email] Sent: Thursday, 6 Feb, 2020 At 15:07 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
On 2/6/20 11:14 AM, [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] 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] <[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]> To: [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
1234