What motivated the emotional, nonspecific objection to my proposals?

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

What motivated the emotional, nonspecific objection to my proposals?

Michael Ossipoff

I wasn’t going to comment on the many hysterical posts about me from Peter. For one thing, his posts said nothing about this list’s topic—I was Peter’s only topic.  So, I preferred to just post what I intended to say about the list’s topic, calendars.

.

But, because Peter’s off-topic posts about me implied something about (his professed opinion regarding) the merit of my proposals, then it isn’t really off-topic to ask what motivated those posts.

.

The obvious question is:  What was it about my calendar-proposals that so terribly upset Peter?

.

We can start with what it _wasn’t_.

.

It wasn’t anything specifiable about my proposals (…such as an error, a relevance issue, an off-topic issue, a priority issue, etc.),    ,,,because Peter never specified anything other than his highly-emotional angry noises.

.

Alright, then what?

.

To try to answer that requires that I say a few more things about my proposals than I’d otherwise have said.

.

Of course, when posting my proposals, I stated their justifications and intended purpose.  That should accompany any proposal.  I ordinarily don’t evaluate or praise my own proposals. But, by making such an emotional issue about my proposals, Peter invited comment about his motivation, wherever that question leads.

.

First, it would be a joke to suggest that Peter’s strong emotion was evoked by my proposals not being interesting or meritorious enough, or by the quality of my posts not being good enough.  It would take a lot more than that to upset Peter so much.

.

A search for the cause of that strong emotion calls for a closer look at the merits of my proposals.  …which I emphasize was Peter’s topic, not mine.

.

Two possible measures of a proposal’s merit: 

.

1. Justification, relevance, or some reason why the proposal is of interest

.

2. Originality, new-ness

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

1. Justification, relevance, or some reason why the proposal is of interest:

.

Are seasonal calendars justified, relevant or of interest?  Well, they certainly deserve mention, because the French Republican Calendar and Asimov’s World Seasonal Calendar are seasonal calendars. (In fact, they’re astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendars, to at least some degree.)   That, alone, would be enough to make them a legitimate and worthwhile topic at a calendar-forum.

.

Yes there’s geographical seasonal variability, but there are also broad international consensuses about seasons. In particular, the Wikipedia “Seasons” article describes two such consensuses: 1) The South season start when December starts, and the North seasons starts when June starts; and 2) There are meaningfully 6 seasons, including a “Pre-Spring”, and the 4-season model doesn’t work as well.

.

(And no, I’m not trying to conceal the related consensus that Spring starts with March .  That’s part of trying to shoe-horn the seasonal year into 4 seasons.  …part of why there’s so much agreement that 6 seasons would be more realistic.)

.

Arguably (everyone needn’t agree), if we want a calendar that makes a complete break with the arbitrary aspects of the calendric past, seasonal-reference of some kind is the natural and obvious basis for the naming of year-divisions.  In fact, though there are claims to the contrary (and, again, we needn’t agree), I’ve argued that a WeekDate calendar is all that would be needed, if there weren’t desire for seasonal-reference.

.

Alright, given that seasonal-ness is a worthwhile topic, what about the attribute that makes my seasonal proposals different?  That is, what about my proposals’ innovation:  A genuinely astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendar?

.

Though I’ve called French-Republican and World-Seasonal “astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendars, because they both refer to terrestrial seasons (Asimov did so in his exposition, only replacing season-names with numbers for north-south applicability and unbias.   …and the reference remains in his name for his calendar.)

.

But both French-Republican and World-Seasonal get their terrestrial seasons by just designating the astronomical quarters (delineated by solstices and equinoxes) as terrestrial-seasons.  Though that could technically qualify them as “astronomical-terrestrial”,  it surely only makes them only partly, or very roughly, so.

.

My innovation is the tailoring of a calendar’s nominal-seasons to match widely-shared consensuses about the terrestrial-seasons, where that departs from merely commandeering  the astronomical-quarters as terrestrial seasons.

.

Is that innovation worthy of mention at a calendar-forum?  Well, the above-cited widely-shared consensuses were deemed worthy of mention at Wikipedia. The notion of seasonal-calendars is uncontroversially worth mentioning, due at least to French-Republican and World-Seasonal.   Then how could a proposal to tailor a seasonal calendar to match those seasonal consensuses…to make seasonal calendars more what they purport to be… not be worthy of mention at a calendar-forum?

.

Brief note about adoptability: 

.

I make no claim that my 3 proposal are the most adoptable anytime soon.  I’ve repeatedly clarified that they’re for a time when people want a compete departure from the calendrical past.

.

I’ve mentioned many times that  Hanke-Henry and ISO WeekDate are the proposals that would have the best chance of adoption currently (…as if any new calendar had a chance of adoption.)

.

…Hanke-Henry because of its minimal change.   …ISO WeekDate because of its minimal-ness and because its Gregorian-adhering start-day contributes to its current practicality and wide uses by governments and companies.

.

Immediate adoptability isn’t a requirement for a proposal being worth mentioning.   …especially given that there isn’t going to be calendar-change anyway.  Calendars are also a topic of hypothetical interest in principle.

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

2. Originality, Newness:

.

I’ve never heard of a seasonal calendar that doesn’t just use the astronomical-quarters (delineated by solstices & equinoxes) as the nominal seasons. I’ve never heard of one that specifically and intentionally tailors a calendar’s nominal-seasons to match the consensuses that my proposals match.

.

…not that I guarantee that there’s never been such a proposal. I’m only saying that, if there has been one, I haven’t heard of it.   …and I’ve read what I can find about the general calendar-proposals topic (…though I make no claim to have read about every calendar.)

.

What I can say is that _evidently_ my proposal of a genuinely, intentionally and specifically, astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendar is an innovation.

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

So, to summarize:

.

My proposal of two genuinely astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendars is a worthwhile topic to mention at a calendar-forum, and is evidently an innovation.

.

(By the way, my proposed South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar, of course, is astronomical-seasonal (because it starts its calendar-year at the Monday-start closest to the South-Solstice), but isn’t terrestrial-seasonal.  As such, it isn’t as much of an innovation, but is an obvious, natural and minimal proposal for an astronomical-seasonal calendar.   …but I haven’t heard of a previous proposal of it, and so it, too, as such, evidently qualifies as an innovation—a good, natural, obvious and well-justified innovation.  Again, I don’t claim to be sure that it’s new, and, if it isn’t, I was nonetheless justified in posting it, because I hadn’t heard of a previous proposal of it.) 

.

So, the question is, why would those (apparent) innovations, worth mentioning at a calendar-forum, so terribly upset Peter?

.

Let’s not go there.

.

2019-W02-2  (South-Solstice WeekDate)

2019  Late-South  Week 2  Tuesday  (6-Seasons  -3 wk Offset)

2019  South  Week 2  Tuesday  (6-Seasons, 0 Offset)

 

2019 January 1st  (Roman-Gregorian)

.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

COMPARISON - Simplest, Surest & Cheapest Re: What motivated the emotional, nonspecific objection to my proposals?

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Michael Ossipoff, Cc sirs:
>A search for the cause of that strong >emotion calls for a closer look at the merits >of my proposals.  …which I emphasize was >Peter’s topic, not mine.
I have been on this Calendar ‘listserv’ since mid-2002 discussing my ‘options’ since I 
image1.jpeg
first published my “concept” of A World Calendar for All Ages (1971 June 06, Tribune, Chandigarh).  This above format is the result of my many ‘alternate improvements’ of duscussions leading me to establish my links with INDUS civilization and Harappa culture; a Tithi=1 335/326919 day, value I worked for 19-year CYCLE, known & called as Metonic cycle, having its questionable origin?
image1.jpeg
My 896-year cycle in 2-halves ie 448-years/5541 Lunation; with a slight increased length (0.49287326 day, added to 448-years) in ONE Tithi=1 338/326919 day, make the grade for MY=365.2421875 days; and Mean Lunation=29.53058886 days - the current moon to moon duration!
A 400-year Cycle, on Divide by SIX plan can produce Mean Year=7*(52+1/6+13/1200)= 365.2425 days. 
This possibly is the Simplest, Surest & Cheapest EVER Calendar reform proposal, on shifting ‘just the day of July 31 from July & inserting as February 29 (all years); Leap Day gets placed between June 30 & July 01, using divide 4/skip 128th years, with Mean Year=(365+31/128)=365.2421875 days. 
image2.jpeg
I can understand my Brij-Gregorian Modified Calendar is an  Isolated case from a soldier trying to compete with noted Astronomers, Mathematicians & experts. I have been but a dedicated soldier presenting my format & calculations ‘fulfilling required’ demands for Calendar Reform. Since Dec.31 is paled outside of calendar format as World Peace Day - the format could start as above on Monday, 2019 January 01 in continuation with Gregorian calendar in use!
Regards to all members with my NEW YEAR WISHES to everyone, sirs.
Ex-Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), IAF
Tuesday, 2019 January 01H14:08 (decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 1, 2019, at 12:33, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

A search for the cause of that strong emotion calls for a closer look at the merits of my proposals.  …which I emphasize was Peter’s topic, not mine.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: COMPARISON - Simplest, Surest & Cheapest Re: What motivated the emotional, nonspecific objection to my proposals?

Michael Ossipoff
Hi Brij--

You wrote:

This possibly is the Simplest, Surest & Cheapest EVER Calendar reform proposal, on shifting ‘just the day of July 31 from July & inserting as February 29 (all years); Leap Day gets placed between June 30

:

It's a modest and small change from our Roman months, and moving the leap-day to June gives some improved balance and symmetry. But February still has only 29 days.  The months still aren't regularized, as sthey would be with Hanke-Henry. So the improvement wouldn't be enough to give people incentive to do a calendar-change.

One complication is that you propose several different leapyear-rules. That could discourage people when they see the proposal,  Anyway, if it isn't to be a fixed calendar (starting every year on the same day of the week), then there'd be no need to replace the Gregorian leapyear-rule, which works fine, with little jitter or drift-rate,  Admittedly your 365 + 1/4 - 1/128 rule has even less drift, but Gregorian's drift isn't problematic,

For minimal change, I like Hanke-Henry  ...the 30,30,31 quarters, with each year starting on the Moday closest to Gregorian January 1st.

But ISO WeekDate would have a chance, if any alternative calendar had a chance, because it's already in wide international use by governments and companies.

2019-W02-3  (South-Solstice WeekDate)
2019 W01-3  (ISO WeekDate)
2019  Late-South  Week2  Wednesday  (6-Seasons  -3 wk Offset)
2019  South  Week2  Wednesday  (6-Seasons  0 Offset)
2019  January 2nd  (Roman-Gregoriann)
2019 January 3rd  (Hanke-Henry)

Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff


My 896-year cycle in 2-halves ie 448-years/5541 Lunation; with a slight increased length (0.49287326 day, added to 448-years) in ONE Tithi=1 338/326919 day, make the grade for MY=365.2421875 days; and Mean Lunation=29.53058886 days - the current moon to moon duration!
A 400-year Cycle, on Divide by SIX plan can produce Mean Year=7*(52+1/6+13/1200)= 365.2425 days. 
This possibly is the Simplest, Surest & Cheapest EVER Calendar reform proposal, on shifting ‘just the day of July 31 from July & inserting as February 29 (all years); Leap Day gets placed between June 30 & July 01, using divide 4/skip 128th years, with Mean Year=(365+31/128)=365.2421875 days. 

image1.jpeg (195K) Download Attachment
image1.jpeg (452K) Download Attachment
image2.jpeg (144K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feb.29 Re: COMPARISON - Simplest, Surest & Cheapest Re: What motivated the emotional, nonspecific objection to my proposals?

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Walter, Karl, Michael sirs:
>But February still has only 29 days.  The >months still aren't regularized, as sthey >would be with Hanke-Henry.
By increasing the day in February, my intention had been TO SAVE TEACHING  EXPENSES especially to children & their mothers ‘on retaining the current layout of Gregorian calendar’; as also to gain demands to PUBLIC born on Feb.29 to rejoice their Birth Date every year (rather every 4th Years). Additionally, this make my ‘modification’ to have the year in TWO halves(182) days and FOUR quarters(91) days, balancing the distribution of days in the year; as such I keep December 31 (outside of the format) as World Peacd Day falling between Dec.30 & Jan.01; AND the Leap day kept between June 30 & July 01. The TWO halves then remain equal of 183 days during years having the Leap Day [onslight modifying Leap Day Rule -div.4/skip100/count 400th TO SIMPLER div.4/skip 128th years]. This improves the Mean Year to (365+31/128)=365.2421875 days.image1.jpeg
Michael’s observation of too many Leap rules is because of the demand for inserting LEAP WEEKS instead, on removing WPD & LD, taking the place of Leap Day Rule as DIVIDE SIX(6) LEAP WEEK RULE PER CYCLE CHOSEN, 417-years, 448-years, 834-years or 127/896-years. A 1200-year Cycle is square fit for 13 EXTRA (KEPKERS’) Leap Weeks apart from Divide Six(6) Rule - keeping the current MY=365.2425 days. 
I have provided options for experts to ponder, apart from the approval of Papal Office dictates. I am too small a fry to point - what might be the final choice for Mean Year to decide which among my demonstrated cycles, FIT THE BILL; to be least costly to modify the CURRENTLY used calendar - no need to change the format except shifting July 31 as Feb.29 to resolve the “CALENDAR QUESTION” pending unresolved. image2.jpeg
FULLMOON DAY
My regards, to all, sirs:
Ex-Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.),IAF
A SOLDIER FIGHTS TILL HIS LAST BREATH 
Saturday, 2019 Jan.05H16:51(decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 1, 2019, at 20:32, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But February still has only 29 days.  The months still aren't regularized, as sthey would be with Hanke-Henry.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Earth Calendar Re: Feb.29 Re: COMPARISON - Simplest, Surest & Cheapest Re: ...

k.palmen@btinternet.com
Dear Brij and Calendar People

I found Brij's idea on Wikia as the Earth Calendar
http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Earth_Calendar 

Karl

Sunday Alpha January 2019
----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 05/01/2019 - 23:30 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Feb.29 Re: COMPARISON - Simplest, Surest & Cheapest Re: What motivated the emotional, nonspecific objection to my proposals?

Walter, Karl, Michael sirs:
>But February still has only 29 days.  The >months still aren't regularized, as sthey >would be with Hanke-Henry.
By increasing the day in February, my intention had been TO SAVE TEACHING  EXPENSES especially to children & their mothers ‘on retaining the current layout of Gregorian calendar’; as also to gain demands to PUBLIC born on Feb.29 to rejoice their Birth Date every year (rather every 4th Years). Additionally, this make my ‘modification’ to have the year in TWO halves(182) days and FOUR quarters(91) days, balancing the distribution of days in the year; as such I keep December 31 (outside of the format) as World Peacd Day falling between Dec.30 & Jan.01; AND the Leap day kept between June 30 & July 01. The TWO halves then remain equal of 183 days during years having the Leap Day [onslight modifying Leap Day Rule -div.4/skip100/count 400th TO SIMPLER div.4/skip 128th years]. This improves the Mean Year to (365+31/128)=365.2421875 days.
Michael’s observation of too many Leap rules is because of the demand for inserting LEAP WEEKS instead, on removing WPD & LD, taking the place of Leap Day Rule as DIVIDE SIX(6) LEAP WEEK RULE PER CYCLE CHOSEN, 417-years, 448-years, 834-years or 127/896-years. A 1200-year Cycle is square fit for 13 EXTRA (KEPKERS’) Leap Weeks apart from Divide Six(6) Rule - keeping the current MY=365.2425 days. 
I have provided options for experts to ponder, apart from the approval of Papal Office dictates. I am too small a fry to point - what might be the final choice for Mean Year to decide which among my demonstrated cycles, FIT THE BILL; to be least costly to modify the CURRENTLY used calendar - no need to change the format except shifting July 31 as Feb.29 to resolve the “CALENDAR QUESTION” pending unresolved. 
FULLMOON DAY
My regards, to all, sirs:
Ex-Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.),IAF
A SOLDIER FIGHTS TILL HIS LAST BREATH 
Saturday, 2019 Jan.05H16:51(decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 1, 2019, at 20:32, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

But February still has only 29 days.  The months still aren't regularized, as sthey would be with Hanke-Henry.