The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Brian M. Scott on 23 Feb 2010 17:12 Skitt wrote: > Brian M. Scott wrote: >> Skitt wrote: >>> Brian M. Scott wrote: >>>> Skitt wrote: >>>>> PaulJK wrote: >>>>>> We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in >>>>>> summer >>>>> forward >>>> That's the usual terminology, at least in the U.S., >>>> but it does depends on one's point of view. >>> Deciding whether a clock runs forward or backward, >>> you mean? >> No. When you push the time from (say) 10 to 11, you >> can see this as pushing it away from you, just as you >> might push an opponent back. When you let it go from >> 11 to 10, you're then letting it approach you, i.e., >> come forward. > That is a strange way to look at it with regard to time. > What happens to the "spring forward" and "fall back" > reminder? It gets reversed for the people of that > persuasion? Don't ask me: I don't much like either version, precisely because I do recognize the potential ambiguity. I tend to remember it by our summer bedtime mantra when we were kids: 'But it's really only eight o'clock!' Or by knowing that it's in the fall that I get the extra hour. Brian
From: Hatunen on 23 Feb 2010 17:47 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:42:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: >On Feb 23, 1:48�pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:39:35 +0000, Ant nio Marques >> <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote in >> <news:hm13st$kct$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Brian M. Scott wrote (23-02-2010 16:56): >> >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:16:59 +0000, Ant nio Marques >> >> <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> �wrote in >> >> <news:hm0kgg$548$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> �in >> >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> >>> Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39): >> >>>> On 2010-02-23, Andrew Usher wrote: >> >>>>>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than >> >>>>>>> once (it's linked to somewhere in this thread) that >> >>>>>>> fixing Easter to a particular week would be >> >>>>>>> acceptable. >> >>>> ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation >> >>>> of "Roman Catholic".) >> >>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> >>>>>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific >> >>>>>> organization) hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for >> >>>>>> nearly half a millennium. >> >>>>> 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to >> >>>>> exactly one organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend >> >>>>> otherwise. Also, it's been longer than half a >> >>>>> millennium if one includes the East. >> >>>> The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", >> >>>> and the "Polish National Catholic Church" are >> >>>> independent of each other. >> >>>> The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority >> >>>> but I don't think they describe themselves as "Roman >> >>>> Catholic". >> >>> Gad, not again! You're trolling, aren't you? >> >>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. >> >>> ANYWHERE. >> >> It and RC are, however, widely used popular designations. >> > Indeed, but what relevance does that have when trying to >> > ascertain what the precise terminology is? >> >> It's not apparent that any particular notion of precise >> terminology is relevant to Peter's deliberate >> misunderstanding and the subsequent comments thereon. > >_Now_ what are you accusing me of? > >> >>> In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek >> >>> Churches come, the Church has no splitting qualifiers. >> >> But this isn't really relevant outside that tradition. >> > But what is the relevance of the outside of that tradition >> > to what the ECC think of themselves? >> >> You seem to be involved in a different discussion. >> >> >>> �From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple >> >>> churches. >> >> But from an external point of view there very obviously are. >> > It depends, but what is the relevance of any external >> > point of view to the �internal point of view which is >> > being discussed? >> >> You may be discussing an internal point of view; I am not, >> and it's not clear to me that others are doing so, either. >> >> [...] >> >> >>> but it *is* accurate to say that the ECC are 'non-Latin >> >>> CC', even if it's somewhat unwieldy. >> >> Which in a widely used popular terminology becomes 'Catholic >> >> but not Roman Catholic'. >> > In widely used popular terminologies spiders are insects, >> > Cycadaceae are palms and the moon is made of mozzarella. >> >> Not comparable. �'Catholic but not Roman Catholic' actually >> does identify the churches in question. > >There is, for instance, a Ukrainian Catholic Church, with a cathedral >in Pittsburgh, and its observances (as at its large church in Chicago) >borrow a great deal from Orthodox practice. I believe that a great many of the churches which once split away from the church of Rome considered themselves the true catholic chuch. Certainly the Anglicans do. The Anglican covenant says, "(1.1.1) its communion in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: R H Draney on 23 Feb 2010 18:28 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com filted: > >In sci.physics Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: >> >>> >> > I chose the Christian holidays because they are international, >>> >> >>> >> ??? >>> > >>> > They're more so than any other holidays, are they not? >>> >>> I suspect that you could find people celebrating Pesach, Purim, Rosh >>> Hashanah, and Yom Kippur in as many countries as any four Christian >>> holidays. >> >> Well, yes, but not _more people_. > >With roughly 1.3 billion Chinese alone, New Years is celebrated by a LOT >more people. Sure, in late February....r -- "Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
From: R H Draney on 23 Feb 2010 18:32 Adam Funk filted: > >On 2010-02-22, R H Draney wrote: > >> (Comments are denoted by the "lamp" character, made by overstriking "jot" and >> "up-shoe")....r > >As an emacs user, I'm not going to mock someone else's mnemnonics. (Not as long as the word "hexlify" appears in the standard command set, you're not....) "Jot" and "up-shoe" are official, if the Unicode charts are anything to go by..."lamp" is merely conventional, and I always thought the thing looked more like an upraised thumb anyway....r -- "Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
From: Jerry Friedman on 23 Feb 2010 18:37
On Feb 22, 6:23 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Feb 22, 11:02 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > how about a leap-fortnight, half as often? > > > 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. 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. .... I just dropped by rasfw, where people had discussed a different proposal: http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/symmetry.htm Andrew Plotkin remarked, "I realize that's not the point, and bringing up practical objections to utopian calendrical reforms is like closing the barn door before the potted geraniums can escape." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/browse_frm/thread/030532c10ae96f24/0dccbd7f8cffe391?lnk=raot#0dccbd7f8cffe391 -- Jerry Friedman thought it was funny. |