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: 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
From: PaulJK on 24 Feb 2010 04:28
António Marques wrote: > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39): >> On 2010-02-23, Andrew Usher wrote: >> >> >>>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked >>>>> to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week >>>>> would be acceptable. >> >> ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation of "Roman >> Catholic".) >> >>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> >>>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) >>>> hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. >>> >>> 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one >>> organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been >>> longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. >> >> The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", and the >> "Polish National Catholic Church" are independent of each other. >> >> The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority but I don't >> think they describe themselves as "Roman Catholic". > > Gad, not again! You're trolling, aren't you? > > "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. I was just skimming through, but these screaming capitals stopped me dead in my tracks. I reached into my legal files and pulled out my "Geburts- und Taufschein / Rodný a křestní list", (Birth and Christening certificate). Under "Religion / Náboženství" is pre-printed "römisch-katholische / římsko-katolické". It's not in English but it is clearly stated in two different languages. What could be a clearer example of self-designation. pjk > In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek Churches come, the > Church has no splitting qualifiers. It's just 'the Church'. 'Roman Church' > can only mean 'the Church in the city of Rome' or 'the Church, in communion > with Rome' (which is redundant). > > From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple churches. There's > only one. To say that there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a > matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a religious matter. The > multiplicity of churches is anathema and downright sin. > > Now, historically, 'Catholic Church' has been used whenever one needs to > contrast the Church to some heretic/schismatic group. And that simply > because while the heretics/schismatics were glad to call themselves > 'church', if someone came to them asking for 'the catholic church', all of > them would point to the non-heretics/schismatics. For whatever reason, not > one heretic/schismatic body has ever called itself > simply-'Catholic'-without-more. Not in the ancient world, not after the E-W > schism, not after the Reformation. It's under the name 'Catholic' that > catholics were persecuted in northern Europe. When someone mentions > 'catholics', it's not to eastern orthodox, old or polish catholics that they > are refering to. > > 'Catholic' meaning 'universal' was also until recently an accurate > descriptor, since the Roman Church more than any other sought to be a > universal organisation, as opposed to the politically-splintered Protestants > and the ethnically-splintered various Orthodoxes. In more recent times, most > of those have boosted their universal aspirations (which always existed), of > course. > > The Roman Church usually calls itself 'the Church', but is fond of > 'Catholic' for a variety of reasons, so 'the Catholic Church' is often used > officially. In ecumenical context, if apporpriate, it doesn't object to also > being 'Roman', but that adjective is otherwise left out since it may be > interpreted as limiting (if not outright contradictory when juxtaposed to > 'catholic'). Courtesy also means the RC is willing to call the Orthodox > 'Orthodox', since it's the name the latter are fond of, not unlike the > catholics are fond of 'Catholic'. That doesn't mean the RC doesn't consider > itself orthodox, or that the EO don't consider themselves catholic. > > Officaly not being there a 'Roman Catholic Church', the question of whether > the 'Eastern Catholic Churches' are 'Catholic' but not 'Roman Catholic' > makes no sense. But if one applies Church terminology, then 'Roman Catholic > Church' can only mean 'The Catholic Church, in communion with Rome', which > the ECC certainly are. Now, you *may* wish to call the Roman Church 'the > Roman Catholic Church', but in that case you're not the best source of > information on the relationship of the ECC to the RC. > > People *not* into the church's organisation may think that 'Roman' refers to > the Roman Rite. It doesn't. The adjective that may go with 'Roman Rite' is > 'Latin', but even that is not very accurate. but it *is* accurate to say > that the ECC are 'non-Latin CC', even if it's somewhat unwieldy. |