The perpetual calendar
in [Math]
|
Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
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
From: Robert Bannister on 22 Feb 2010 20:37 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. > > Brian I think you should go and live in Inverness until you change your mind. -- Rob Bannister
From: Robert Bannister on 22 Feb 2010 20:38
Ant�nio Marques 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. What I want to know is what do they do with all this daylight they've saved? I'm not getting it, and I think they're using my daylight for nefarious activities. -- Rob Bannister |