The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: António Marques on 19 Feb 2010 16:03 Zhang Dawei wrote (19-02-2010 19:37): > António Marques wrote: > >> A word of advice: when your interpretation of something makes no >> sense at all, and yet a tiny change in one of your assumptions may >> make all the nonsense go away, be prepared to revise your >> assumption. Communication only works thanks to the ability of both >> parties to infer the strictly unstated. It's only natural that >> unnecessary disambiguation be omitted. That can lead to >> misunderstading at times, but it's the price to pay for efficiency. > > I have learned, from many years of experience, that it is far better > to interpret proposals at face-value with minimal mangling of > interpretations by guesses as to a intended interpretation. It is a > necessity in many serious areas of academic endeavour. Of course. But there is no such thing as a literal reading. It always involves interpretation. The interpretation that someone who went to the trouble of thinking up that calendar actually intends the whole world to follow american holidays may have been the first one that occurred to you, but is too outlandish to take seriously without evidence. You might have equally read it as implying that everyone should use the same month names (not even translating them) that are used in the calendar's presentation. It's just as warranted. >> Another one: when you come across some idea/proposal that appears to >> have some obvious flaw, which however can be left out with no impact >> at all on the rest, feel free to leave it out and just evaluate the >> rest. > > Why not work to help improve the proposal for everyone by mentioning > flaws that need attention? Criticism can be positive as well as > negative. Of course. You'd be quite right to point out to the owner of the website that he could disambiguate.
From: António Marques on 19 Feb 2010 16:07 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote (19-02-2010 19:21): > In sci.physics Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Feb 19, 11:52 am, Halmyre<flashgordonreced...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>> But, the whole point of Easter is that it has a full moon! You >>>> might as well scrap the whole thing otherwise. Or are you >>>> suggesting that we only take holidays at Easter every four years or >>>> so, when your “settled” date just happens to correspond with the >>>> right lunar phase? >>> >>> We don't have Christmas only when there's a bright star in the east. >>> >>> It's like saying "I was born on a Wednesday, so I'll only celebrate >>> my birthday when it falls on a Wednesday". >> >> The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that >> arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when it >> falls on a weekend than in the middle of the week. Given that Christmas >> is the most important holiday in the year, should we not all get at >> least a 3-day weekend, which we have for lesser holidays? > > Less than around 30% of the world population cares about Christmas or > Easter or think that "Christmas is the most important holiday in the > year". Well, but for those who don't it doesn't really matter one way or the other what day Christmas and Easter Sunday are, does it? So what relevance do they have for you to bring them along? Or was it just the desire to sound clever?
From: Andrew Usher on 19 Feb 2010 16:53 On Feb 19, 3:07 pm, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > >> The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that > >> arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when it > >> falls on a weekend than in the middle of the week. Given that Christmas > >> is the most important holiday in the year, should we not all get at > >> least a 3-day weekend, which we have for lesser holidays? > > > Less than around 30% of the world population cares about Christmas or > > Easter or think that "Christmas is the most important holiday in the > > year". > > Well, but for those who don't it doesn't really matter one way or the other > what day Christmas and Easter Sunday are, does it? So what relevance do they > have for you to bring them along? Or was it just the desire to sound clever? Right, and I figure that my calendar would be no worse than the present for those that don't. Indeed, I considered this problem purely as a logical one; as I've stated, I don't consider myself Christian, I adopted the Church calendar as a base only because it makes the problem more interesting. I didn't consider my calendar complete until I worked out my new leap year rule (Rule #3) - it not only ensures that both Christmas and Easter are within 7-day periods despite being a constant distance from each other and having leap day in between, it simultaneously causes there to be exactly 52 Sundays in every year if you take out Nov. 1 which is All Saints' day; this immediately allows te to draw up a permanent list of the Sundays in the year with their traditional Christian designations, and then follow the perpetual calendar. And I moved the start of the week numbering to August from Nov. 1 so that the academic year and the US football season would be on the fixed schedule, and I think there can be no objection to that. The holidays I consider are Christmas and Easter (and of course the Church festivals fixed to them, but hardly anyone cares anymore), and US Thanksgiving - but other civil holidays could easily be fixed to the same if they are now observed on a Monday, say, or otherwise not fixed to a particular date. Andrew Usher
From: Brian M. Scott on 19 Feb 2010 17:05 On 19 Feb 2010 01:06:25 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> wrote in <news:hllkah0nkl(a)drn.newsguy.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > James Hogg filted: >>Andrew Usher wrote: >>> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of >>> the calendar, and attempting in passing to create a >>> more perfect Church calendar, I say the following: [...] >> Give the sound of your name, I suppose you would also >> renumber the years, with year 1 in what is now 4004 BC. > I'm taking a survey...how many were thinking something > along the same lines?... I was. [...] Brian
From: Jonathan Morton on 19 Feb 2010 17:07
"Yusuf B Gursey" <ybg(a)theworld.com> wrote in message news:896542a4-e823-450a-8450-86d878949925(a)w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >Easter is a moveable feast, meaning it is not fixed in relation to the >civil calendar. The First Council of Nicaea (325) established the date >of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full >Moon) following the vernal equinox.[3] Ecclesiastically, the equinox >is reckoned to be on March 21 (regardless of the astronomically >correct date), and the "Full Moon" is not necessarily the >astronomically correct date. The date of Easter therefore varies >between March 22 and April 25. It does, but at present (certainly until 2199, at which point we move to a new table) it is not capable of falling on 22 March. Of course we had 23 March in 2008 and there's a 24 April coming up next year. Regards Jonathan |