UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff
In fact, if UCC were adopted to mark a Utopian epoch, then mightn't it be best to call the year of that Utopian epoch "Year 1"?

MIchael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:20 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff
Oops!

I said that today could would be roughly, South 8th.

I meant: Today would be, roughly, South 1, 8th.

The 8th day of South 1.

(As I said, I don't know what approximation you'd use, for the approximate equinoxes and solstices that UCC is based on.)

MIchael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:23 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
In fact, if UCC were adopted to mark a Utopian epoch, then mightn't it be best to call the year of that Utopian epoch "Year 1"?

MIchael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:20 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:


But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff

Dear Michael et al

BTW if you are looking for a rule based calendar that approximates the seasonal lengths you should look at the Indian National Civil Calendar Starting from the northward equinox it has month lengths of 30/31-31-31-31-31-31-30-30-30-30-30-30 to adjust to the seasons Perhaps the French month names could be used with a 33 year leap day cycle Also, the month lengths could be shifted about once every 1700 years to adjust to precession

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oops!

I said that today could would be roughly, South 8th.

I meant: Today would be, roughly, South 1, 8th.

The 8th day of South 1.

(As I said, I don't know what approximation you'd use, for the approximate equinoxes and solstices that UCC is based on.)

MIchael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:23 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
In fact, if UCC were adopted to mark a Utopian epoch, then mightn't it be best to call the year of that Utopian epoch "Year 1"?

MIchael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:20 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff
I've just realized that I was mistaken to say that the most recent coinciding of a principle date (solstice or equinox) with an apsis involved a solstice. The most recent one was the one that you referred to, when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff

Dear Michael et al

Some time around 1200 CE the solstices aligned with the perihelion and aphelion

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
But, arguably, the solstices are more internationally-relevant.  Here's why it seems so to me:

The Summer Solstice is an obvious natural day to celebrate.

The Winter Solstice, too, is a day to celebrate, because the Sun is on its way back up.

The Spring Equinox is obviously a day to celebrate, because its the one that occurs when the Sun is on its way up.

...but the Autumn Equinox is when the Sun is on its way down, into winter.

Therefore, because both equinoxes are important, then that suggests that the coinciding of solstices with apsides might be the more important coinciding, from which to number years.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've just realized that I was mistaken to say that the most recent coinciding of a principle date (solstice or equinox) with an apsis involved a solstice. The most recent one was the one that you referred to, when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff

Dear Michael

My personal preference is to align with the equinoxes There are a couple of reasons for this 1 the current Gregorian calendar is aligned with the northward equinox 2 the last alignment with the equinoxes occurred prior to nearly all historical events (4000 BCE) and 3) there is already an epoch available to use (Anno Lucis)

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But, arguably, the solstices are more internationally-relevant.  Here's why it seems so to me:

The Summer Solstice is an obvious natural day to celebrate.

The Winter Solstice, too, is a day to celebrate, because the Sun is on its way back up.

The Spring Equinox is obviously a day to celebrate, because its the one that occurs when the Sun is on its way up.

...but the Autumn Equinox is when the Sun is on its way down, into winter.

Therefore, because both equinoxes are important, then that suggests that the coinciding of solstices with apsides might be the more important coinciding, from which to number years.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've just realized that I was mistaken to say that the most recent coinciding of a principle date (solstice or equinox) with an apsis involved a solstice. The most recent one was the one that you referred to, when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff
Those reasons sound like good ones.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:37 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

My personal preference is to align with the equinoxes There are a couple of reasons for this 1 the current Gregorian calendar is aligned with the northward equinox 2 the last alignment with the equinoxes occurred prior to nearly all historical events (4000 BCE) and 3) there is already an epoch available to use (Anno Lucis)

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
But, arguably, the solstices are more internationally-relevant.  Here's why it seems so to me:

The Summer Solstice is an obvious natural day to celebrate.

The Winter Solstice, too, is a day to celebrate, because the Sun is on its way back up.

The Spring Equinox is obviously a day to celebrate, because its the one that occurs when the Sun is on its way up.

...but the Autumn Equinox is when the Sun is on its way down, into winter.

Therefore, because both equinoxes are important, then that suggests that the coinciding of solstices with apsides might be the more important coinciding, from which to number years.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've just realized that I was mistaken to say that the most recent coinciding of a principle date (solstice or equinox) with an apsis involved a solstice. The most recent one was the one that you referred to, when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff
At first I thought that the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and a coinciding of solstices with apsides, would be 1/8 of of the apsidal precession period, the period of the equinoxes' precession with respect to the apsides.

But isn't the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and the coinciding of solstices with apsides, only 1/4 of an asidal precession period?

If so, then there hasn't been a solstices' coinciding with the apsides, since the last time when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

...meaning that, though the most recent coinciding of equinoxes with apsides was before nearly all historical record--the most recent coinciding of solstices with the apsides was before all historical record.   ...and was a time roughly coinciding with the beginning of the time of significant warming from the ice-age, and the beginning of a more comfortable and favorable time for humans.

(...admittedly maybe leading to the societal disaster of the arrival of stationary populations and "civilization".)

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Those reasons sound like good ones.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:37 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

My personal preference is to align with the equinoxes There are a couple of reasons for this 1 the current Gregorian calendar is aligned with the northward equinox 2 the last alignment with the equinoxes occurred prior to nearly all historical events (4000 BCE) and 3) there is already an epoch available to use (Anno Lucis)

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
But, arguably, the solstices are more internationally-relevant.  Here's why it seems so to me:

The Summer Solstice is an obvious natural day to celebrate.

The Winter Solstice, too, is a day to celebrate, because the Sun is on its way back up.

The Spring Equinox is obviously a day to celebrate, because its the one that occurs when the Sun is on its way up.

...but the Autumn Equinox is when the Sun is on its way down, into winter.

Therefore, because both equinoxes are important, then that suggests that the coinciding of solstices with apsides might be the more important coinciding, from which to number years.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've just realized that I was mistaken to say that the most recent coinciding of a principle date (solstice or equinox) with an apsis involved a solstice. The most recent one was the one that you referred to, when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff

...but alright, wikipedia says that the apsidal precessional period varies between 20,800 years and 29,000 years.   A quarter of that would be 5200 years to 7250 years.

So I don't know what the current apsidal precession-rate is, and, if it's sonly 5200 years, and if the coinciding of equinoxes with apsides was around  4000 BC, about 6000 years ago, then that would mean that the solstices coincided with the apsides around 1200 A.D., as you said.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:30 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
At first I thought that the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and a coinciding of solstices with apsides, would be 1/8 of of the apsidal precession period, the period of the equinoxes' precession with respect to the apsides.

But isn't the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and the coinciding of solstices with apsides, only 1/4 of an asidal precession period?

If so, then there hasn't been a solstices' coinciding with the apsides, since the last time when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

...meaning that, though the most recent coinciding of equinoxes with apsides was before nearly all historical record--the most recent coinciding of solstices with the apsides was before all historical record.   ...and was a time roughly coinciding with the beginning of the time of significant warming from the ice-age, and the beginning of a more comfortable and favorable time for humans.

(...admittedly maybe leading to the societal disaster of the arrival of stationary populations and "civilization".)

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Those reasons sound like good ones.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:37 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

My personal preference is to align with the equinoxes There are a couple of reasons for this 1 the current Gregorian calendar is aligned with the northward equinox 2 the last alignment with the equinoxes occurred prior to nearly all historical events (4000 BCE) and 3) there is already an epoch available to use (Anno Lucis)

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
But, arguably, the solstices are more internationally-relevant.  Here's why it seems so to me:

The Summer Solstice is an obvious natural day to celebrate.

The Winter Solstice, too, is a day to celebrate, because the Sun is on its way back up.

The Spring Equinox is obviously a day to celebrate, because its the one that occurs when the Sun is on its way up.

...but the Autumn Equinox is when the Sun is on its way down, into winter.

Therefore, because both equinoxes are important, then that suggests that the coinciding of solstices with apsides might be the more important coinciding, from which to number years.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've just realized that I was mistaken to say that the most recent coinciding of a principle date (solstice or equinox) with an apsis involved a solstice. The most recent one was the one that you referred to, when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff

Dear Michael et al

At the current rate of precession (which varies over time with eccentricity) there is a period of almost 5200 years between when the apsides align either with the solstices or the equinoxes Roughly the alignments have occurred like this

Solstices 9200 BCE
Equinoxes 4000 BCE
Solstices 1200 CE
Equinoxes 6400 CE

The whole cycle takes about 20800 years currently but the eccentricity is decreasing now and in the future those intervals will shrink

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

At first I thought that the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and a coinciding of solstices with apsides, would be 1/8 of of the apsidal precession period, the period of the equinoxes' precession with respect to the apsides.

But isn't the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and the coinciding of solstices with apsides, only 1/4 of an asidal precession period?

If so, then there hasn't been a solstices' coinciding with the apsides, since the last time when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

...meaning that, though the most recent coinciding of equinoxes with apsides was before nearly all historical record--the most recent coinciding of solstices with the apsides was before all historical record.   ...and was a time roughly coinciding with the beginning of the time of significant warming from the ice-age, and the beginning of a more comfortable and favorable time for humans.

(...admittedly maybe leading to the societal disaster of the arrival of stationary populations and "civilization".)

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Those reasons sound like good ones.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:37 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

My personal preference is to align with the equinoxes There are a couple of reasons for this 1 the current Gregorian calendar is aligned with the northward equinox 2 the last alignment with the equinoxes occurred prior to nearly all historical events (4000 BCE) and 3) there is already an epoch available to use (Anno Lucis)

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
But, arguably, the solstices are more internationally-relevant.  Here's why it seems so to me:

The Summer Solstice is an obvious natural day to celebrate.

The Winter Solstice, too, is a day to celebrate, because the Sun is on its way back up.

The Spring Equinox is obviously a day to celebrate, because its the one that occurs when the Sun is on its way up.

...but the Autumn Equinox is when the Sun is on its way down, into winter.

Therefore, because both equinoxes are important, then that suggests that the coinciding of solstices with apsides might be the more important coinciding, from which to number years.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've just realized that I was mistaken to say that the most recent coinciding of a principle date (solstice or equinox) with an apsis involved a solstice. The most recent one was the one that you referred to, when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff
Yes, I didn't know what the current apsidal precession-rate is (I only knew the wide range within which it varies).

But still, from the coinciding-dates that you stated, which I agree with, given the 20,800 year apsidal precession period, the solstice-apsides coinciding that occurred before the most recent equinox-apsides coinciding, was, as you said, 9200 B.C.

And still, then, though the most recent equinox-apsides coinciding wasn't before all historical record, the solstice-apsides coinciding before that was before all historical record (but not before the time of that remarkable archaeological site that was recently discovered in Turkey)

So that could be an argument for choosing the UCC's year-zero as the solstices-apsides conjunction that occurred before the recent equinoxes-apsides conjunction.

I just wanted to mention all considerations.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:50 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

At the current rate of precession (which varies over time with eccentricity) there is a period of almost 5200 years between when the apsides align either with the solstices or the equinoxes Roughly the alignments have occurred like this

Solstices 9200 BCE
Equinoxes 4000 BCE
Solstices 1200 CE
Equinoxes 6400 CE

The whole cycle takes about 20800 years currently but the eccentricity is decreasing now and in the future those intervals will shrink

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
At first I thought that the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and a coinciding of solstices with apsides, would be 1/8 of of the apsidal precession period, the period of the equinoxes' precession with respect to the apsides.

But isn't the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and the coinciding of solstices with apsides, only 1/4 of an asidal precession period?

If so, then there hasn't been a solstices' coinciding with the apsides, since the last time when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

...meaning that, though the most recent coinciding of equinoxes with apsides was before nearly all historical record--the most recent coinciding of solstices with the apsides was before all historical record.   ...and was a time roughly coinciding with the beginning of the time of significant warming from the ice-age, and the beginning of a more comfortable and favorable time for humans.

(...admittedly maybe leading to the societal disaster of the arrival of stationary populations and "civilization".)

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Those reasons sound like good ones.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:37 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

My personal preference is to align with the equinoxes There are a couple of reasons for this 1 the current Gregorian calendar is aligned with the northward equinox 2 the last alignment with the equinoxes occurred prior to nearly all historical events (4000 BCE) and 3) there is already an epoch available to use (Anno Lucis)

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
But, arguably, the solstices are more internationally-relevant.  Here's why it seems so to me:

The Summer Solstice is an obvious natural day to celebrate.

The Winter Solstice, too, is a day to celebrate, because the Sun is on its way back up.

The Spring Equinox is obviously a day to celebrate, because its the one that occurs when the Sun is on its way up.

...but the Autumn Equinox is when the Sun is on its way down, into winter.

Therefore, because both equinoxes are important, then that suggests that the coinciding of solstices with apsides might be the more important coinciding, from which to number years.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've just realized that I was mistaken to say that the most recent coinciding of a principle date (solstice or equinox) with an apsis involved a solstice. The most recent one was the one that you referred to, when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

k.palmen@btinternet.com
Dear Michael Walter and Calendar People

I had taken the apsidal precession period of the equinoxes to be about 22 thousand years, which is less than the sidereal precession period of the equinoxes of about 26 thousand years, because apsides slowly precess relative to the stars.

The time when the apsides were aligned with the equinoxes seems to be a good time for an epoch.

If the calendar were to use the 33-year cycle currently aligned with the Solar Hijri calendar, then setting year 1 to begin in 1201 CE would cause the leap years to be those years whose number gives a non-zero remainder divisible by 4 when divided by 33 as with the Dee 33-year cycle with CE year numbering.

Karl

Friday Gamma November 2018
----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 15/11/2018 - 22:05 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Yes, I didn't know what the current apsidal precession-rate is (I only knew the wide range within which it varies).

But still, from the coinciding-dates that you stated, which I agree with, given the 20,800 year apsidal precession period, the solstice-apsides coinciding that occurred before the most recent equinox-apsides coinciding, was, as you said, 9200 B.C.

And still, then, though the most recent equinox-apsides coinciding wasn't before all historical record, the solstice-apsides coinciding before that was before all historical record (but not before the time of that remarkable archaeological site that was recently discovered in Turkey)

So that could be an argument for choosing the UCC's year-zero as the solstices-apsides conjunction that occurred before the recent equinoxes-apsides conjunction.

I just wanted to mention all considerations.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:50 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

At the current rate of precession (which varies over time with eccentricity) there is a period of almost 5200 years between when the apsides align either with the solstices or the equinoxes Roughly the alignments have occurred like this

Solstices 9200 BCE
Equinoxes 4000 BCE
Solstices 1200 CE
Equinoxes 6400 CE

The whole cycle takes about 20800 years currently but the eccentricity is decreasing now and in the future those intervals will shrink

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
At first I thought that the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and a coinciding of solstices with apsides, would be 1/8 of of the apsidal precession period, the period of the equinoxes' precession with respect to the apsides.

But isn't the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and the coinciding of solstices with apsides, only 1/4 of an asidal precession period?

If so, then there hasn't been a solstices' coinciding with the apsides, since the last time when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

...meaning that, though the most recent coinciding of equinoxes with apsides was before nearly all historical record--the most recent coinciding of solstices with the apsides was before all historical record.   ...and was a time roughly coinciding with the beginning of the time of significant warming from the ice-age, and the beginning of a more comfortable and favorable time for humans.

(...admittedly maybe leading to the societal disaster of the arrival of stationary populations and "civilization".)

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Those reasons sound like good ones.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:37 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

My personal preference is to align with the equinoxes There are a couple of reasons for this 1 the current Gregorian calendar is aligned with the northward equinox 2 the last alignment with the equinoxes occurred prior to nearly all historical events (4000 BCE) and 3) there is already an epoch available to use (Anno Lucis)

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
But, arguably, the solstices are more internationally-relevant.  Here's why it seems so to me:

The Summer Solstice is an obvious natural day to celebrate.

The Winter Solstice, too, is a day to celebrate, because the Sun is on its way back up.

The Spring Equinox is obviously a day to celebrate, because its the one that occurs when the Sun is on its way up.

...but the Autumn Equinox is when the Sun is on its way down, into winter.

Therefore, because both equinoxes are important, then that suggests that the coinciding of solstices with apsides might be the more important coinciding, from which to number years.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've just realized that I was mistaken to say that the most recent coinciding of a principle date (solstice or equinox) with an apsis involved a solstice. The most recent one was the one that you referred to, when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff
I found a figure of 113,200 years for the current period of rotation of the apsides.  I found  a figure of 25,772 years for the current period of the precession of the equinoxes. If they're in opposite directions, then the apsidal precession of the equinoxes is about 20,992 years.

If there was a conjunction of the equinoxes with the apsides  around 4000 B.C., then there was a conjunction of the solstices with the apsides around 9200 B.C.  That's close to the time that I mentioned, when there was significant warming from the Ice-Age, and new more favorable, more comfortable conditions for humans (which were unfortunately abused in was that led to what we call "civilization").

So, not only was 9200 B.C. before all recorded history, but it was also close to that new time of warming and a potential dawn of new opportunity for humanity.

Michael Ossipoff







On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 6:46 AM K PALMEN <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Michael Walter and Calendar People

I had taken the apsidal precession period of the equinoxes to be about 22 thousand years, which is less than the sidereal precession period of the equinoxes of about 26 thousand years, because apsides slowly precess relative to the stars.

The time when the apsides were aligned with the equinoxes seems to be a good time for an epoch.

If the calendar were to use the 33-year cycle currently aligned with the Solar Hijri calendar, then setting year 1 to begin in 1201 CE would cause the leap years to be those years whose number gives a non-zero remainder divisible by 4 when divided by 33 as with the Dee 33-year cycle with CE year numbering.

Karl

Friday Gamma November 2018
----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 15/11/2018 - 22:05 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Yes, I didn't know what the current apsidal precession-rate is (I only knew the wide range within which it varies).

But still, from the coinciding-dates that you stated, which I agree with, given the 20,800 year apsidal precession period, the solstice-apsides coinciding that occurred before the most recent equinox-apsides coinciding, was, as you said, 9200 B.C.

And still, then, though the most recent equinox-apsides coinciding wasn't before all historical record, the solstice-apsides coinciding before that was before all historical record (but not before the time of that remarkable archaeological site that was recently discovered in Turkey)

So that could be an argument for choosing the UCC's year-zero as the solstices-apsides conjunction that occurred before the recent equinoxes-apsides conjunction.

I just wanted to mention all considerations.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:50 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

At the current rate of precession (which varies over time with eccentricity) there is a period of almost 5200 years between when the apsides align either with the solstices or the equinoxes Roughly the alignments have occurred like this

Solstices 9200 BCE
Equinoxes 4000 BCE
Solstices 1200 CE
Equinoxes 6400 CE

The whole cycle takes about 20800 years currently but the eccentricity is decreasing now and in the future those intervals will shrink

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
At first I thought that the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and a coinciding of solstices with apsides, would be 1/8 of of the apsidal precession period, the period of the equinoxes' precession with respect to the apsides.

But isn't the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and the coinciding of solstices with apsides, only 1/4 of an asidal precession period?

If so, then there hasn't been a solstices' coinciding with the apsides, since the last time when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

...meaning that, though the most recent coinciding of equinoxes with apsides was before nearly all historical record--the most recent coinciding of solstices with the apsides was before all historical record.   ...and was a time roughly coinciding with the beginning of the time of significant warming from the ice-age, and the beginning of a more comfortable and favorable time for humans.

(...admittedly maybe leading to the societal disaster of the arrival of stationary populations and "civilization".)

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Those reasons sound like good ones.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:37 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

My personal preference is to align with the equinoxes There are a couple of reasons for this 1 the current Gregorian calendar is aligned with the northward equinox 2 the last alignment with the equinoxes occurred prior to nearly all historical events (4000 BCE) and 3) there is already an epoch available to use (Anno Lucis)

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
But, arguably, the solstices are more internationally-relevant.  Here's why it seems so to me:

The Summer Solstice is an obvious natural day to celebrate.

The Winter Solstice, too, is a day to celebrate, because the Sun is on its way back up.

The Spring Equinox is obviously a day to celebrate, because its the one that occurs when the Sun is on its way up.

...but the Autumn Equinox is when the Sun is on its way down, into winter.

Therefore, because both equinoxes are important, then that suggests that the coinciding of solstices with apsides might be the more important coinciding, from which to number years.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've just realized that I was mistaken to say that the most recent coinciding of a principle date (solstice or equinox) with an apsis involved a solstice. The most recent one was the one that you referred to, when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Michael Ossipoff
Because of its use of the Chinese astronomical seasons, in the name of that calendar, I'd add the word "Chinese": 

The 30X12 Minimum-Displacement Chinese Astronomical/Terrestrial Calendar.

Michael Ossipoff

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:23 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Because of its use of the Chinese astronomical seasons, in the name of that calendar, I'd add the word "Chinese": 

The 30X12 Minimum-Displacement Chinese Astronomical/Terrestrial Calendar.

Michael Ossipoff

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:57 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Oops! I said that in leapyears Southward3 would have 42 days. But of course, with 10 day weeks, leapyear Southward3 would have 45 days.

Michael Ossipoff

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I meant to add:  Of course each last month of a year would have an extra 5 days in common years.

So, if the winter solstice is in the middle of the South season, and the year starts at the beginning of the South season, then Southward3 would have 35 days instead of 30.

In leapyears, that last month would have 42 days.

If that sounds like a lot of avoidable month-length-inequality, of course it's necessary to preserve the advantage of each month beginning always on the same day of the week (...a "One").

With each such common-year only being .2422 day short, and with a 10-dayi week, it would typically take about 40 years, from one leapyear to the next. So leapyears would be relatively infrequent. 

Celebration holidays during the added 5 days at the end of Southward3? Sure. And of course bigger celebration during the rare extra week at the end of leapyear Southward3.

(When I suggested season-names such as South, Northward, etc., of course I was referring to solar declination during those months)

This calendar includes advantages and aspects of UCC and French-Republican. It could be called the 30X12 Minimum-Displacement Astronomical/Terrestrial Seasonal Calendar.

...or it could be called UCC or The International French-Republican Calendar.

The name doesn't matter.

Of course it would be up to the people at the time of adoption, whether they prefer making year 1 the year of the great Utopian Epoch, or the (roughly) 9200 B.C. conjunction of solstices and apsides.

Michael Ossipoff


On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:39 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's true that the 30X12 month-system loses continuity and similarity to the weather-meaning of the 12 months. But, it may very well be that, at the Utopian epoch at which people would likely want a radically new calendar, those people wouldn't want continuity of any kind with the bad-old days!

So I really like UCC and the French-Republican Calendar (in an Internationally-relevant version).

The natural astronomical way to name the months is to number them in natural astronomical seasons.

(I like the Chinese practice of having solstices and equinoxes at the middle of the seasons, instead of at the beginning of the seasons.

The obvious astronomical way to name such seasons is:

South, Northward, North, Southward, South

Number the 30-day months (triads) within each of those months.

With that month-system, the calendar will be the most natural UCC, and also the internationally-applicable French-Republic Calendar.

Regrettably, of course, the French-Republican Calendar's detailed seasonal references wouldn't be possible, at least in the International version.. But each climate-zone could have its own local seasonal additions, making the French Republican Calendar a feasible reality--in those local versions.  ...whose local seasonal additions needn't interfere with the calendar's international use.

The calendar should use leap-weeks instead of blank-days. I'd suggest the optimally-accurate, and unmatched naturally and obviously  motivated Minimum-Displacement leapyear-rule.

So this calendar would be both the UCC and the (Inernational) French Republican Calendar.

It would be a good choice for a Utopian epoch, and it's what I'd suggest for such a time.

Michael Ossipoff








On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:58 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I found a figure of 113,200 years for the current period of rotation of the apsides.  I found  a figure of 25,772 years for the current period of the precession of the equinoxes. If they're in opposite directions, then the apsidal precession of the equinoxes is about 20,992 years.

If there was a conjunction of the equinoxes with the apsides  around 4000 B.C., then there was a conjunction of the solstices with the apsides around 9200 B.C.  That's close to the time that I mentioned, when there was significant warming from the Ice-Age, and new more favorable, more comfortable conditions for humans (which were unfortunately abused in was that led to what we call "civilization").

So, not only was 9200 B.C. before all recorded history, but it was also close to that new time of warming and a potential dawn of new opportunity for humanity.

Michael Ossipoff







On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 6:46 AM K PALMEN <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Michael Walter and Calendar People

I had taken the apsidal precession period of the equinoxes to be about 22 thousand years, which is less than the sidereal precession period of the equinoxes of about 26 thousand years, because apsides slowly precess relative to the stars.

The time when the apsides were aligned with the equinoxes seems to be a good time for an epoch.

If the calendar were to use the 33-year cycle currently aligned with the Solar Hijri calendar, then setting year 1 to begin in 1201 CE would cause the leap years to be those years whose number gives a non-zero remainder divisible by 4 when divided by 33 as with the Dee 33-year cycle with CE year numbering.

Karl

Friday Gamma November 2018
----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 15/11/2018 - 22:05 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Re: UCC: Questions, agreement, and a few objections

Yes, I didn't know what the current apsidal precession-rate is (I only knew the wide range within which it varies).

But still, from the coinciding-dates that you stated, which I agree with, given the 20,800 year apsidal precession period, the solstice-apsides coinciding that occurred before the most recent equinox-apsides coinciding, was, as you said, 9200 B.C.

And still, then, though the most recent equinox-apsides coinciding wasn't before all historical record, the solstice-apsides coinciding before that was before all historical record (but not before the time of that remarkable archaeological site that was recently discovered in Turkey)

So that could be an argument for choosing the UCC's year-zero as the solstices-apsides conjunction that occurred before the recent equinoxes-apsides conjunction.

I just wanted to mention all considerations.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:50 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

At the current rate of precession (which varies over time with eccentricity) there is a period of almost 5200 years between when the apsides align either with the solstices or the equinoxes Roughly the alignments have occurred like this

Solstices 9200 BCE
Equinoxes 4000 BCE
Solstices 1200 CE
Equinoxes 6400 CE

The whole cycle takes about 20800 years currently but the eccentricity is decreasing now and in the future those intervals will shrink

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
At first I thought that the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and a coinciding of solstices with apsides, would be 1/8 of of the apsidal precession period, the period of the equinoxes' precession with respect to the apsides.

But isn't the time between a coinciding of equinoxes with apsides, and the coinciding of solstices with apsides, only 1/4 of an asidal precession period?

If so, then there hasn't been a solstices' coinciding with the apsides, since the last time when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

...meaning that, though the most recent coinciding of equinoxes with apsides was before nearly all historical record--the most recent coinciding of solstices with the apsides was before all historical record.   ...and was a time roughly coinciding with the beginning of the time of significant warming from the ice-age, and the beginning of a more comfortable and favorable time for humans.

(...admittedly maybe leading to the societal disaster of the arrival of stationary populations and "civilization".)

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Those reasons sound like good ones.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:37 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

My personal preference is to align with the equinoxes There are a couple of reasons for this 1 the current Gregorian calendar is aligned with the northward equinox 2 the last alignment with the equinoxes occurred prior to nearly all historical events (4000 BCE) and 3) there is already an epoch available to use (Anno Lucis)

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
But, arguably, the solstices are more internationally-relevant.  Here's why it seems so to me:

The Summer Solstice is an obvious natural day to celebrate.

The Winter Solstice, too, is a day to celebrate, because the Sun is on its way back up.

The Spring Equinox is obviously a day to celebrate, because its the one that occurs when the Sun is on its way up.

...but the Autumn Equinox is when the Sun is on its way down, into winter.

Therefore, because both equinoxes are important, then that suggests that the coinciding of solstices with apsides might be the more important coinciding, from which to number years.

Michael Ossipoff


On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've just realized that I was mistaken to say that the most recent coinciding of a principle date (solstice or equinox) with an apsis involved a solstice. The most recent one was the one that you referred to, when the equinoxes coincided with the apsides.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Then wouldn't the most recent coinciding of a principle date (equinox or solstice) with an aphelion or perihelion involve solstice?

If so, then maybe the year of that occurrence, as the most recent occurrence of a principle date with an apsis, would be the most un-arbitrary choice of astronomically-based year-0 for UCC.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael

Around 4000 BCE the perihelion occurred close to the southward equinox and the aphelion occurred close to the northward equinox It was a double co occurance
Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter--

Interesting. I didn't know that such a year-numbering system was in use.

It would then be a choice between numbering from when a special solstice or equinox, such as the North Solstice, South Solstice or North Equinox coincided with aphelion or perihelion (my first impression is that perihelion is better, because closeness to the Sun sounds better than far-ness from the Sun),  vs the societally-related inclination to number from the Utopian epoch that the calendar marks.

Michael Ossipoff

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

IMO I like your idea of referencing the aphelion and perihelion for the precision cycle As I have mentioned earlier the Anno Lucis year numbering scheme of the Freemansons not only converts easily from the CE year numbering (CE + 4000) and covers nearly all historical dates, but its epoch occurs within 100-200 years of when the perihelion and aphelion aligned with the equinoxes

WalterZiobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Thursday, November 15, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But yes, it's a tempting approach, to not try for a meaningful terrestrial seasonal calendar, and just make the calendar about the astronomical seasons. The UCC has some good ideas, and would be a good possibility to adopt to mark a Utopian epoch, as a possible alternative to some internationally-applicable terrestrial seasonal calendar resembling the French-Republican Calendar.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't oppose UCC, if it didn't have blank-days.   ...if it, instead, used leap-weeks.

The 5-day periodic-displacement amplitude resulting from the 10-day week is a disadvantage, but it might be justified by the convenience of a 10-day week, and the relative unarbitrariness of a week-length that matches the base of our number-system.  Anyway, that larger periodic-displacement amplitude isn't as important, when the calendar isn't offered as a terrestrial seasonal calendar.

But the other change that I'd suggest is needed is the names of the months (triads).  Other than in astrology, people aren't familiar with the zodiac sign names.  Wouldn't it be better to name the 12 months according to the direction of the solar declination?  Number the south-declination triads South 1 to South 6.  Name the north declination triads North 1 to North 6.

There was a participant here who was from China, and he described a traditional Chinese astronomical seasonal calendar that divided the year into astronomical quarter in such a way that each quarter was centered on a solstice or equinox, instead of starting on one.

If the calendar really is intended as purely astronomical (without trying to describe terrestrial seasons), wouldn't that Chinese system make more sense?

Then the astronomical quarters could be named South, Northward, North, and Southward.

The triads could then be numberd according to their position in a quarter.

For example, today would be roughly South 8th

(I realize that UCC (realistically) doesn't try to exactly model the actual equinoxes and solstices, and I don't know exactly what approximation it uses.)

The other thing that I don't understand about UCC's its year-numbering system. Yes it makes sense, for complete objectivity, to name the years according to the precession great-year.  But why not, instead, base it on precession with respect to aphelian and perihelion? Wouldn't that be more solar-system-locally meaningful?

And how to choose the 0-year, for the year-numbering? No can name an exact year when the Holocene or the Pliestecene began.

I like your idea of using the earliest date referred to in ancient calendars, but I'd like to hear more about specifically what those references are, by what calendars.

MIchael Ossipoff


123