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: jmfbahciv on 23 Feb 2010 07:36 PaulJK 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. > I worked with a guy who did the experiment to find out what his circadian rhythm was. He determined it was 28 hours. If so, he must have felt hung over during his childhood. /BAH
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 07:26 Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17): > speaking of Eastern Churches, Easter is more important in Eastern > Churches. significantly, modern Turkish borrows "Easter" from Greek > (Paskalya) and "Christmass" from French (Noel). What you certainly mean is that the Middle East isn't as dechristianised as the US. > also Monophysite Churches (Armenian Orthodox, Jacobite Syrian, Coptic) > reject Dec. 25 as the date of Christmass. It's miaphysite! Again, the date of Christmas isn't religiously significant, other than being at that time of the year. The fact that different churches use different dates doesn't mean they are in disagreement (as your 'reject' implies), any more than having different feast days for the same saint. The only religiously significant dates are those of the moveabe cycle. Over which there isn't much disagreement other than what calendar to use.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 23 Feb 2010 07:28 On Feb 23, 7:05 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > > > "The advantages of living with two cultures > > > Strike one at every turn, > > > Especially when one finds a notice in an office building > > > 'This elevator will not run on Ascension Day'; > > > Presumably, it takes one trip and gets stuck at the top. > > Waiting for Descension Day? > > (Why isn't there a word 'decension'?) Because there's no need for a word to contrast with "descent" with a special meaning. You're free to refer to the Incarnation as the Descension, if you choose to be even further incomprehensible.
From: James Hogg on 23 Feb 2010 07:35 Andrew Usher wrote: > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > >>> "The advantages of living with two cultures >>> Strike one at every turn, >>> Especially when one finds a notice in an office building >>> 'This elevator will not run on Ascension Day'; >> Presumably, it takes one trip and gets stuck at the top. > > Waiting for Descension Day? > > (Why isn't there a word 'decension'?) You mean, "Why did the word 'descension' die out?" I don't know. You can still hear it every time Henry IV Part 2 is performed. There's no quotation in the OED after 1881. -- James
From: James Hogg on 23 Feb 2010 07:36
Andrew Usher wrote: > Mike Barnes wrote: >> Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(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. Here the OED disagrees with you. -- James |