The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: jimp on 22 Feb 2010 20:05 In sci.physics Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Peter Moylan wrote: >> Andrew Usher wrote: >> >> > I chose the Christian holidays because they are international, >> >> ??? > > They're more so than any other holidays, are they not? > > Andrew Usher Nope, New Years is celebrated by almost all countries and cultures. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Robert Bannister on 22 Feb 2010 20:22 PaulJK wrote: > Peter Moylan wrote: >> Halmyre wrote: >> >>> I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. >> The present system might sound complicated, but it's a consistently >> reliable method - at least in Australia - for predicting the arrival of >> the first really rainy weekend in the year. This ensures that all the >> people who go camping for the long weekend will be rained out, year >> after year. > > Well, in New Zealand that prticular function is performed by Christmas. > > Often, the rain keeps regularly returning until the end of January/ > beginning of February when the kids go back to school after the > end of summer holidays. How unpleasant. We always have a "record" heat wave organised for the week the kids go back to school, but unfortunately, apart from the eastern states, we don't usually have rain between November and March. (All weather in Australia is a record, eg the hottest day since last Tuesday). -- Rob Bannister
From: Mensanator on 22 Feb 2010 20:25 On Feb 22, 3:43 pm, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > Brian M. Scott wrote (22-02-2010 21:33): > > > R H Draney wrote: > > > [...] > > >> If you want a crank, find the person who came up with Daylight Saving > >> Time.... > > >> Then find his successor who decided that DST should apply for more of > >> the year than "Standard" time....r > > > I like DST; my only objection is that we don't have it all year round. > > Yeah, what sense does it make to save daylight only during half of the year. It's called the law of diminishing returns.
From: Andrew Usher on 22 Feb 2010 20:28 Transfer Principle wrote: > > > Just use a 364-day year with a leap week. What's troublesome about that? > > I never thought about it that way, but come to think of it, > the calendar that Usher describes really is a "leap week" > calendar in disguise. It could be understood as a leap week calendar that retains the traditional months and dates, yes. > To answer the question, "what's > troublesome about that?" it must be emphasized that the > more changes there are to the standard calendar, the less > likely it would actually be implemented. Of course, it's > unlikely that any calendar change would be implemented at > all, but still, slight changes to the current leap year > rule are more likely to be implemented than changing to a > full leap week calendar. More radical changes, such as > switching to 13-month years, are even less likely to be > implemented than either type of calendar. That's what I thought. My adjustments retain all the familiarity with the calendar that people have now, excepting the date of Christmas. > As I mentioned earlier, the Usher calendar contains three > leap weeks every 17 years. I have revised my rule (see my other reply to you) to 22 leap weeks every 124 years. This gives 365.2419 days/year, which is perfect. I intentionally want the year to be a bit short, keeping the calendar accurate for a longer time, as due to the Earth's slowing rotation the year loses 0.0001 day every one or two millennia. Andrew Usher
From: Robert Bannister on 22 Feb 2010 20:30
Ant�nio Marques wrote: > Robert Bannister wrote (22-02-2010 01:15): >> Andrew Usher wrote: >>> On Feb 19, 6:07 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> 6. This is surely the best possible arrangement that can be made, >>>>> without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days >>>>> inherited from the Romans. >>>> If you are going to try to make it sensible, then please give us 13 >>>> four-week months with one or two specially named days at the end of the >>>> year to even it out. The first day of each month should be a Monday. >>> >>> Once again, I said that I excluded having days outside the week. And >>> the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that is an >>> incontrovertible fact. >> >> Oh dear. I had thought that you weren't a crank up till now. >> >>> >>> Having 13 months, in addition, would screw up a bunch of things ; in >>> particular, 13 can't be divided. >> >> Why is that so important? Why is not having days outside the week >> important? I seem to have lost the point of having a calendar change. > > 1) It's ugly. > 2) It's religiously unacceptable. > > Just use a 364-day year with a leap week. What's troublesome about that? I have no problems with that either. I also don't understand why the other way would be religiously unacceptable. -- Rob Bannister |