add to the other 40

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

add to the other 40

Phil De Rosa
It seems to me that we may need to add more than one new calendar to the other 40 or so in use now but I don’t see this as being a problem

It seems to me that we may need to add more than one new calendar to the other 40 being used now but I don’t see this as being a problem. There appears to be two streams of thought being discussed here.

 

One concerns the need to add # 41, an extremely accurate ‘observational’ calendar (I assume for religious or traditional reasons) that may be accurate to less than three tenths of a second over a period of 4 to 10 millennia or more. I suppose a calendar of this sort could be invaluable to astronomers, archaeologists, anthropologists, geo- and astro-physicists, NASA, etc.

 

But how far into the future do we really have to project? We know that; nothing lasts forever, the ‘natural disorder of things’ prevails, change is the only constant in nature, plus the battle of ‘Armageddon’ (Man against Planet Earth) has begun and Earth definitely is losing making even more changes likely. Also what amount of accuracy do we really need to live with?

 

These are only two of this Calendar List’s unanswered questions.   

 

The other calendar, # 42, a civil (secular), down to earth schematic calendar, suggests the need for a simple ‘clock like’ tool as opposed to an ‘observational’ sun-dial type dependent upon clear skies. This will simply let people and business know; whether tomorrow is a workday or a leisure day, as well as the position of any day or date, in the year, quarter, or week, etc. This need only be sufficiently accurate for a period of about another 500 years, or probably much less, depending on the rate of destruction we inflict on our planet.

 

The Gregorian 4/100/400 leap day calendar (already accepted by most as a common civil calendar) has sufficed for the past 500 years with acceptable accuracy, and apart from some logical regularization changes such as four quarters of 30-30-31 day months, 52 seven day weeks and an unnumbered ‘Worldsday’, plus a name change, it could serve the world well for another 500 years or until we’re really ready to radically reform the calendar.

          

Is it possible to resolve the following?

 

A) Sunrise and sunset times change from day to day so either MIDDAY or MIDNIGHT which are adequately stable must be used as the start of a new day.                                             

 

B) One of the solstices or the equinoxes (Northern Solstice or Equinox) must be chosen for the beginning of the year.                                                                                                     

 

C) The calendar’s ‘year 0’ must be established at a neutral date. Two suggestions are: 476 BC (Aryabhata’s birth year in India) or 310 BC (Aristarchus’ birth year in Greece). Earlier is preferred.

 

D) Years’ end must have an intercalated day, called Worldsday or whatever, and leap year day must also be unnumbered.

 

Even though we are ‘temporarily’ burdened with it we must think outside of the ‘seven day week’ box as it is the source of most calendrical problems for the Lunar, Lunisolar, and Solar calendars.

 

If one is serious about calendar reform one should expect, no demand, this one intercalated, unnumbered day concession from the Vatican, Jerusalaem, Mecca, and the other religious centres in exchange for retaining the seven day week. Recalling that a Pope Pious X11 encyclical stated “everything is ordained by God” only the naïve would expect no resistance from the religious fundamentalists to calendar reform no matter how miniscule. Though difficult at times we must often break with the past to move forward. Those whose thinking is ‘locked in the past’ will resist any change such as using a common, civil, world calendar consisting of 364 numbered days plus an intercalated ‘Worldsday’ alongside of their own parochial calendars which would remain intact to use wherever and whenever they wish.

 

We must have the ‘long view of history’ and look to the future because there is no doubt that we will have to wait until the Bushes, Bin Ladins, and Benedicts cease to have a say over things scientific before we can achieve a modicum of even simple change. But Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo created a precedent for having a major change in our thinking accepted, even though reluctantly. We can follow in their steps and hope it won’t take another 400 years for the world to acknowledge the need for commonsense changes. Business, also the movers for successful ‘Metric’ change in the British Commonwealth in the 70’s bringing them into line with the club of modern day import/export nations, would need and have to be the driving force behind any calendar simplification/standardization.   

 

Phil De Rosa – linking Nature and Commonsense

 

.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: add to the other 40

VictorEngel
Dear Philip and Calendar People,

Philip said, relating to a new proposed observational calendar:

> But how far into the future do we really have to
> project?

If it's an observational calendar, what is there to
project? You simply observe.

... and relating to a new schematic calendar:

> A) Sunrise and sunset times change from day to day
> so either MIDDAY or MIDNIGHT which are adequately
> stable must be used as the start of a new day.

Why? What's wrong with midnight?
 
> B) One of the solstices or the equinoxes (Northern
> Solstice or Equinox) must be chosen for the
> beginning of the year.

Why? If it's not observational, then who cares?

> C) The calendar's 'year 0' must be established at a
> neutral date. Two suggestions are: 476 BC
> (Aryabhata's birth year in India) or 310 BC
> (Aristarchus' birth year in Greece). Earlier is
> preferred.

Why not Julian day number 0?

> D) Years' end must have an intercalated day, called
> Worldsday or whatever, and leap year day must also
> be unnumbered.

Why "must" it be unnumbered?

> Even though we are 'temporarily' burdened with it we
> must think outside of the 'seven day week' box as it
> is the source of most calendrical problems for the
> Lunar, Lunisolar, and Solar calendars.

You are making an assumption here which you have not
demonstrated. The simple definition of the Gregorian
calendar, a solar calendar, doesn't even refer to weekdays.

> If one is serious about calendar reform one should
> expect, no demand, this one intercalated, unnumbered
> day concession from the Vatican, Jerusalaem, Mecca,
> and the other religious centres in exchange for
> retaining the seven day week.

Why?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: add to the other 40

Amos Shapir
In reply to this post by Phil De Rosa
You seem to have neglected two major points:
1. "Religion" and "Progress" are contradicting terms, by definition;
2. While you note correctly that Business (and usually not Science per se)
is the principal mover
  of change, you have overlooked the major role of the Business of Religion.


>From: Philip DeRosa <[hidden email]>

>Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 20:39:57 -0700
>
>
>If one is serious about calendar reform one should expect, no demand, this
>one intercalated, unnumbered day concession from the Vatican, Jerusalaem,
>Mecca, and the other religious centres in exchange for retaining the seven
>day week. Recalling that a Pope Pious X11 encyclical stated "everything is
>ordained by God" only the naïve would expect no resistance from the
>religious fundamentalists to calendar reform no matter how miniscule.
>Though difficult at times we must often break with the past to move
>forward. Those whose thinking is 'locked in the past' will resist any
>change such as using a common, civil, world calendar consisting of 364
>numbered days plus an intercalated 'Worldsday' alongside of their own
>parochial calendars which would remain intact to use wherever and whenever
>they wish.
>
>We must have the 'long view of history' and look to the future because
>there is no doubt that we will have to wait until the Bushes, Bin Ladins,
>and Benedicts cease to have a say over things scientific before we can
>achieve a modicum of even simple change. But Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo
>created a precedent for having a major change in our thinking accepted,
>even though reluctantly. We can follow in their steps and hope it won't
>take another 400 years for the world to acknowledge the need for
>commonsense changes. Business, also the movers for successful 'Metric'
>change in the British Commonwealth in the 70's bringing them into line with
>the club of modern day import/export nations, would need and have to be the
>driving force behind any calendar simplification/standardization.
>
>Phil De Rosa - linking Nature and Commonsense
>
>.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Aryabhata

Joe Kress
In reply to this post by Phil De Rosa
Philip wrote:

> The calendar's 'year 0' must be established at a neutral date.
> Two suggestions are: 476 BC (Aryabhata's birth year in India)
> or 310 BC (Aristarchus' birth year in Greece). Earlier is
> preferred.

Aryabhata was born in 476 CE, not BCE.

Joe Kress