The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 24 Feb 2010 03:09 "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > On Feb 23, 7:07�pm, Ant�nio Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: >> Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal >> ('catholic') vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as >> a central structuring element. Notice the RC was never 'the Italian >> Church' even when popes were italian for centuries long. > > Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or > without the _filioque_.) Assuming that you're not begging the question, no. Mormons don't. I don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses do. I see claims that Seventh-Day Adventists accept the original (325) Nicene Creed but not the revised (381) version. I'm not sure about Christian Scientists. And I would be surprised if there weren't a number of churches (minor, but more mainstream than those mentioned) that don't disagree with it but don't actually use it. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Theories are not matters of fact, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |they are derived from observing Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fact. If you don't have data, you |don't get good theories. You get kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com |theology instead. (650)857-7572 | --John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 24 Feb 2010 03:13 "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > 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? If that's the way he heard it, sure. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem |to see the obvious. kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Michael Press on 24 Feb 2010 03:25 In article <hlvvbr$50g$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "PaulJK" <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Brian M. Scott wrote: > > 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. > > I would prefer if every 24 hour day was made longer by one > hour, i.e. 25 hours long. I know it would cause some strife > for many people but I for one and people like me wouldn't have > to suffer the pain of advancing my slow circadian rhythm clock > by an hour every morning. There is a reason our circadian period is ~25 hour. It is easier to reset a physical oscillator before its natural end of cycle, than just after; much, much easier. A free running 25 hour period allows for enough stochastic variation to keep the period longer than 24 hour. -- Michael Press
From: Mike Barnes on 24 Feb 2010 03:04 Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com>: >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. Not everywhere. >If you use Monday, you are defining a different >week. No, using is not the same as defining. There's no sense of exclusion of alternatives. -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
From: Mike Barnes on 24 Feb 2010 03:17
Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net>: >On Feb 23, 5:33�pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> Brian M. Scott wrote: >> > I did. �So? �'Morning' covers rather a lot, and the fact >> > remains that at the time of day that kids are going to >> > school, DST doesn't necessarily make a great deal of >> > difference in the amount of daylight. >> It depends where you live and what time school starts and finishes in >> your area. To get to school by 8 or 8:15 am, some country kids need to >> be on the school bus by 7. Now, when daylight saving was first >> introduced, it only covered the summer months, but then they had to >> tamper with it, so that by the end of the period now, 7 am is before >> sunrise. > >Somehow, the original thread, which was about a proposed >calendar reform, has branched off into several discussions, >including this one on Daylight Saving Time. > >Here's the original purpose of DST. In certain higher >latitudes (including most of the UK), the length of the >daylight at the summer solstice was around 16 hours. With >the period of daylight centered at noon GMT, this would make >the sun rise at around 4AM, before most people awake. And >so we set the clock forward in the spring. The reason we set >it back in autumn is because if we didn't, the sun wouldn't >rise at the winter solstice until around 9AM, after most >people need to be at work or school. > >In other words, the only way to avoid _both_ objectionable >sunrise times (4AM and 9AM) is to have a biannual clock shift. Here those extreme sunrise times would be 3:40 and 9:20. I can see the objection to 9:20, but what's the objection to 3:40? -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England |