The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 02:19 On Feb 23, 11:35 pm, j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Mike Barnes wrote: > > >> It's not a matter of true or false. The start of the week is a > >> perception, not a fact. Different people have different perceptions. If > >> you appear not to recognise this, you risk being thought a crank. > > > You can define the week any way you want, but the historical seven-day > > week begins on Sunday. > > In some cultures, not all. But since he's basing his imaginary calendar on what he considers the imaginary church's framework, where Sunday is indeed the first day, ...
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 02:20 On Feb 23, 11:01 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in > <news:b635eda9-c279-4467-91f7-041a0adef830(a)g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> > in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > > On Feb 23, 12:27 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > [...] > > >> I've hear it commented that daylight time was invented by > >> an Amrican Indian who, finding his blanket too short to > >> reach his chin, cut off the lower end of the blanket and > >> sewed it onto the upper end. > > [...] > > > Is there a reason for attaching that story to a particular > > ethnicity? [...] > > Quite possibly accuracy in reporting. So if it were told about "Ol' Uncle Tom," that would be "accuracy in reporting" too?
From: Michael Press on 24 Feb 2010 02:42 In article <12b0qi75ce0uj$.1wolqbg03qiap$.dlg(a)40tude.net>, "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:41:20 -0800, Skitt > <skitt99(a)comcast.net> wrote in > <news:hm17gp$89l$1(a)news.albasani.net> in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > > PaulJK wrote: > > >> We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in summer > > > forward > > That's the usual terminology, at least in the U.S., but it > does depends on one's point of view. > So all ambiguous locutions need to be flushed. The problem is discerning the implied frame with respect to which the adjustment is made. Go with advance the clock, and retard the clock. "We are moving up the delivery by a week." What the hell! "We are delaying the delivery by a week." "We are advancing the delivery by a week." -- Michael Press
From: James Hogg on 24 Feb 2010 02:48 Andrew Usher wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> On Feb 23, 7:09 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Mike Barnes wrote: >>>> Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com>: >>>>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective >>>>> (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. >>>> That's a matter of perception rather than fact. Most people's perception >>>> is different from yours, I suspect. >>> Mine is based on logic. One declines like a noun, not a pronoun, and >>> is clearly identical to the number one, which is a noun (adjective), >>> not a pronoun. >> It's already been noted that this thread is widely crossposted. >> >> Perhaps the mathematicians and physicists should leave the linguistics >> to the linguists. > > I have as much ability to analyse language as any of your people! "your people"? -- James
From: PaulJK on 24 Feb 2010 03:09
Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:49:44 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in > <news:hm015d$bca$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >> Brian M. Scott wrote: > >>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:32:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >>> <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in >>> <news:ad442cf6-ce22-4ffe-b05b-786b865fb3fc(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> >>> in >>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >>>> On Feb 22, 10:55 pm, "Brian M. Scott" >>>> <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > >>> [...] > >>>>> I can't imagine why you think that I'd change my mind. As >>>>> far as I'm concerned, DST has no disadvantages at any time >>>>> of year in any climate at any latitude. In winter at higher >>>>> latitudes its advantages are minimal, but it still has no >>>>> disadvantages. I couldn't care less how dark it is in the >>>>> morning; it's in the afternoon and evening that I want the >>>>> benefit of as much daylight as possible. > >>>> The point is that the kiddies shouldn't go off to school >>>> in the dark. > >> But how is DST helping kids not to go to school in the dark? > > It isn't. Peter's saying that we go off DST in the winter > so that kids don't have to go to school in the dark. Okay. However, that is not the reason for having DST. It is, amongst other things, why we are not having it all year around. When I used to go to school in Europe, it was dark on the way to school in winter. IIRC, it was dark till about 8:30 - 9:00 depending on cloud cover. The school started at 8:00 and I had to leave home before 7:30. Where I live now, the nights in winter are noticeably shorter than in central Europe. pjk >> We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in summer >> because in summer it's bright earlier. > > Actually, I believe that the purpose was to have a longer > period of daylight in the evenings. > >> In summer kids go to school an hour earlier but in winter >> they go to school at the time they always used to go. > > In summer kids traditionally don't go to school at all in > the U.S. Once upon a time many of them worked on the farm. > > Brian |