|
Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Yiping, Mike and Calendar People
I expect the months of Mike’s declination calendar to begin on
the nearest Monday to the following dates or possibly the second nearest Monday
if almost as near, depending on the leap week rule. Here I assume the leap week
is in the last month of the North season (North-IV)
Northward-I February 18,
Northward-II March 25
North-I April 22,
North-II May 27,
North-III June 24,
North-IV July 22
Southward-I August 20,
Southward-II September 24
South-I October 22,
South-II November 26,
South-III December 24,
South-IV January 21
If two weeks were added to the start and end of the short
seasons taken from the long seasons, the corresponding dates would be
Northward-I February 4,
Northward-II March 4,
Northward-III April 8
North-I May 6,
North-II June 3,
North-III July 8
Southward-I August 6,
Southward-II September 3,
Southward-III October 8
South-I November 5,
South-II December 3,
South-III January 7
Such a calendar would not be Mike’s. It could be called the
Equal Season Declination Leap Week Calendar (ESDLWC).
I’ve put the long (5-week) month to the middle of each season. So
the long month has the solstice or equinox within it. The leap week occurs in
North-III.
I don’t know how Yiping got his new year suggestion of January
14th from. January 7th (possibly January 5th) would
seem more appropriate or even February 4th , which is close to the
Chinese New year. January 14th seems to be appropriate to a Hindu-based
sidereal solar calendar. Also it is the current new year in the Julian
Calendar.
A subjective Season calendar with a six-week lag from the
unequal season declination calendar would give the following corresponding dates:
Northward-I April 1,
Northward-II May 6,
North-I June 3,
North-II July 8,
North-III Aug 5,
North-IV September 2,
Southward-I October 1,
Southward-II November 5
South-I December 3,
South-II January 7,
South-III February 4,
South-IV March 4
Karl
10(11(22
PS: I think the month names look better with a hyphen in them. I
don’t expect Mike to object to this.
From: East Carolina University Calendar
discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of zengyiping
Sent: 12 August 2009 04:44
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar
details without escapes
Dear Mike and calendar people,
Don't loss your temper and put a label on your discussing opponent.Putting a
jalel on opponent isn't debatting.
Ok,I ask you:how you got your winter length 117 days or 118 days or 119 days
?Write your detailed steps.May be you have sufficient reason.
Yiping Zeng 13/Aug/2009
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:54:49 +0000
> From: nkklrp@...
> Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar
details without escapes
> To: CALNDR-L@...
>
> Dear Yiping,
>
> You wrote:
>
> The June and december are month's name which represent two time pereods
and not two days.people say the wenter start from December,it is not equal
saying that winter
> start from Dec 1st.
>
> I reply:
>
> Saying that winter arrives with December is saying that, at least more or
less, winter starts when December starts. When Leigh Hunt, the 18th century
British writer (along with other writers too), said that June is full summer,
he was referring to the month of June. That month starts on June 1. Neither
Leigh Hunt, nor others throughout the temperate zone, think that, suddenly and
abruptly, summer (or southern hemisphere winter) starts on June 1. But they do
say that summer (or southern winter) arrives with June. They know it isn't
exact at that day, or at 12 midnight on that day.
>
>
> But you just consider winter start from Dec 1st.People' saying is a rough
estimate,but your calendar start winter on Dec 1st is a standard accurate
> day and consider it as a standard origin.
>
> I reply:
>
> Actually you're wrong there. In its fixed version, Subjective Seasonal's
North doen't always start on June 1 Gregorian, though it is centered on that
Gregorian date. In the fixed version it always starts on June 1.
>
> You wrote:
>
> It has been an other thing.This is what I say your Subjective Calendar's
base is not scientific.
>
> I reply:
>
> The widespread feeling that northern summer and southern winter arrive
with June, and that northern winter and southern summer arrive with December
may not be "scientific", but it's nevertheless widespread.
Terrestrial seasons don't precisely abide by the calendar--sorry if they aren't
scientific enough for you :-)
>
> But when you try to apply science beyond its legitimate range of application,
then you're a practitioner of pseudo-science.
>
> You continued:
>
> From moving new years day forward to Jan 14th I deduce to that your
winter's length is 90,not 117.It is right or wrong?
>
> I reply:
>
> It is wrong. Subjective Seasonal's North and South seasonal divisions are
119 days, in the fixed version, and 117 or 118 days in the various nonfixed
versions.
>
> But I dare say that if you move things around enough, you can change any
calendar to have year-divisions of whatever length you want it to have :-)
>
> By the way, in your last quoted sentence above, I still have no idea what
you're talking about. The length of my calendars' seasons is in no way affected
by where you move Gregorian New Year to.
>
> You continued:
>
> If it is right,you have to think about.
>
> I reply:
>
> You need to think about what you mean by "From moving new year's day
forward to Jan 14th I deduce that your winter's length is 90, not 117."
Think about whether you know what that means, and whether you're sure that it
means anything. If it means something, and if you know what it means, then
maybe you can more carefully say what it means.
>
> Yiping had said:
>
> Mike's Declination Calendar is a zero-timelag seasonal calendar, but it
has unequal four seasons. If its four seasons change to equal, it'll became a
world
> astronomical
> seasonal calendar. It'll become the same proposal as mine.
>
> I reply:
>
> If you sufficiently change anything, it will be the same as anything you
want it to be the same as. Before changes, however, there is little similarity
between those 2 calendars. They're both astronomical seasonal calendars. They
both center their major year divisions on equinoxes and solstices. Beyond that
there is no similarity. You propose a longitude calendar, and I propose a
declination calendar. Big difference.
>
> Karl had replied:
>
> I don’t think so. All Mike’s seasons begin on a Monday.
>
> Yiping replied:
>
> If we were to start each season either 2 weeks before one of Mike’s short
seasons or 2 weeks after the start of one of Mike’s long seasons. We’d normally
have
> four equal seasons of 13 weeks
>
> I reply:
>
> Yes, and "If wishes were horses..."
>
> If we were to start each season 2 weeks before or after my calendar does,
then we wouldn't any longer be able to call it my calendar, would we.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get free photo software from Windows Live
> http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009
您可以借助 Windows Live 整理、编辑和 共享您的照片。
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|
|
Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Mike and all calendar people, A Comment about leapweek Cutting foot to fitting shose A Chinese saying goes "cutting foot to fittng shose".It is a foolish suggestion. Foot is innate,but shose is human-made.Cutting foot is a painful operation ,but amend shose is more easy.Why don't amend shose to fit foot.? Do you agree? The topical year is natural or astronomal and 7-days week is human-made. Why cutting calendar year to 364 days to fit 7-days weeks and not opposit. Some person may ask :" any calendar must has integer days,so must round topical year(365.24219 ) to integer days ,such as 365 days(common year )or 366 days (leap year).This is cutting too." I'll reply :"Rounding 365.24219..... to 365 or 366 only cutting 0.24219...or adding 0.75781 which less than one day.It is easy like hair cutting or nail cutting for beaty and it is painless. But cutting year to 364 days is more hard work. It like a surgical operation. 364 day year need leapweek. In our calendar list a lot of calendar people discuss and suggest many leapweek rule, up to now no one of them is simple and clear for conviniant use. 364 day year and leapweek seriously affect seasons. 5-week and 4-week month break month even.7-day week come from region. It is a human-made system. Calendar's functions is counting dates and indicate seasons For this goal system of year and month is suficient. 7-day week was added into Gregorian by region. Since then Gregorian became non-fixed for week. Year and week pruduce unsolved contradictory.The World Calendar attempt to solve it using "out side day".It is a method with modifying 7-day week system.But religion people don't agree. Leap week is an other method for solving this problem. But It seriously affect year and season ,so seriously affect basic functions of calendar. Since 7-day week is not neccasary for realizing calendar's basic functions(counting dats and indecating seasons),why not get rid of the 7-day week problem from world calendar? New world calendar only need incluse "year and months system"and left selecting weeks system to every country.They can continue using 7-days week system or try using reformed 7-week system or other new week system or select no using any week system. My "The Natural Seasonnal World Calendar "is a no week and leap day calendar. If any country like 7-day week system it can continue using it. If any country want use 5-day week new system(flexible) ,this calendar has prapered a suitable frame. Yiping Zeng 13/Agu/2009 > Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:54:49 +0000 > From: nkklrp@...> Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes > To: CALNDR-L@...> > Dear Yiping, > > You wrote: > > The June and december are month's name which represent two time pereods and not two days.people say the wenter start from December,it is not equal saying that winter > start from Dec 1st. > > I reply: > > Saying that winter arrives with December is saying that, at least more or less, winter starts when December starts. When Leigh Hunt, the 18th century British writer (along with other writers too), said that June is full summer, he was referring to the month of June. That month starts on June 1. Neither Leigh Hunt, nor others throughout the temperate zone, think that, suddenly and abruptly, summer (or southern hemisphere winter) starts on June 1. But they do say that summer (or southern winter) arrives with June. They know it isn't exact at that day, or at 12 midnight on that day. > > > But you just consider winter start from Dec 1st.People' saying is a rough estimate,but your calendar start winter on Dec 1st is a standard accurate > day and consider it as a standard origin. > > I reply: > > Actually you're wrong there. In its fixed version, Subjective Seasonal's North doen't always start on June 1 Gregorian, though it is centered on that Gregorian date. In the fixed version it always starts on June 1. > > You wrote: > > It has been an other thing.This is what I say your Subjective Calendar's base is not scientific. > > I reply: > > The widespread feeling that northern summer and southern winter arrive with June, and that northern winter and southern summer arrive with December may not be "scientific", but it's nevertheless widespread. Terrestrial seasons don't precisely abide by the calendar--sorry if they aren't scientific enough for you :-) > > But when you try to apply science beyond its legitimate range of application, then you're a practitioner of pseudo-science. > > You continued: > > From moving new years day forward to Jan 14th I deduce to that your winter's length is 90,not 117.It is right or wrong? > > I reply: > > It is wrong. Subjective Seasonal's North and South seasonal divisions are 119 days, in the fixed version, and 117 or 118 days in the various nonfixed versions. > > But I dare say that if you move things around enough, you can change any calendar to have year-divisions of whatever length you want it to have :-) > > By the way, in your last quoted sentence above, I still have no idea what you're talking about. The length of my calendars' seasons is in no way affected by where you move Gregorian New Year to. > > You continued: > > If it is right,you have to think about. > > I reply: > > You need to think about what you mean by "From moving new year's day forward to Jan 14th I deduce that your winter's length is 90, not 117." Think about whether you know what that means, and whether you're sure that it means anything. If it means something, and if you know what it means, then maybe you can more carefully say what it means. > > Yiping had said: > > Mike's Declination Calendar is a zero-timelag seasonal calendar, but it has unequal four seasons. If its four seasons change to equal, it'll became a world > astronomical > seasonal calendar. It'll become the same proposal as mine. > > I reply: > > If you sufficiently change anything, it will be the same as anything you want it to be the same as. Before changes, however, there is little similarity between those 2 calendars. They're both astronomical seasonal calendars. They both center their major year divisions on equinoxes and solstices. Beyond that there is no similarity. You propose a longitude calendar, and I propose a declination calendar. Big difference. > > Karl had replied: > > I don’t think so. All Mike’s seasons begin on a Monday. > > Yiping replied: > > If we were to start each season either 2 weeks before one of Mike’s short seasons or 2 weeks after the start of one of Mike’s long seasons. We’d normally have > four equal seasons of 13 weeks > > I reply: > > Yes, and "If wishes were horses..." > > If we were to start each season 2 weeks before or after my calendar does, then we wouldn't any longer be able to call it my calendar, would we. > > Mike Ossipoff > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get free photo software from Windows Live > http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009
搜索本应是快乐的，不是么? 快乐搜索，有问必应！微软隆重推出! 立即试用！
|
|
Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Karl and calendar people, I say that if the new year's day move forward 13 days .......only want to show Mike's winter length 117 days is a random number,which relate to random new year's day of Gregorian calendar.Moving 13 days is not neccessary.Moving 1 day or 2 days or....also can show 117 is a random number. Yiping Zeng 13/Aug/2009
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:01:34 +0100 From: karl.palmen@...Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes To: CALNDR-L@...
Dear Yiping, Mike and Calendar People
I expect the months of Mike’s declination calendar to begin on
the nearest Monday to the following dates or possibly the second nearest Monday
if almost as near, depending on the leap week rule. Here I assume the leap week
is in the last month of the North season (North-IV)
Northward-I February 18,
Northward-II March 25
North-I April 22,
North-II May 27,
North-III June 24,
North-IV July 22
Southward-I August 20,
Southward-II September 24
South-I October 22,
South-II November 26,
South-III December 24,
South-IV January 21
If two weeks were added to the start and end of the short
seasons taken from the long seasons, the corresponding dates would be
Northward-I February 4,
Northward-II March 4,
Northward-III April 8
North-I May 6,
North-II June 3,
North-III July 8
Southward-I August 6,
Southward-II September 3,
Southward-III October 8
South-I November 5,
South-II December 3,
South-III January 7
Such a calendar would not be Mike’s. It could be called the
Equal Season Declination Leap Week Calendar (ESDLWC).
I’ve put the long (5-week) month to the middle of each season. So
the long month has the solstice or equinox within it. The leap week occurs in
North-III.
I don’t know how Yiping got his new year suggestion of January
14th from. January 7th (possibly January 5th) would
seem more appropriate or even February 4th , which is close to the
Chinese New year. January 14th seems to be appropriate to a Hindu-based
sidereal solar calendar. Also it is the current new year in the Julian
Calendar.
A subjective Season calendar with a six-week lag from the
unequal season declination calendar would give the following corresponding dates:
Northward-I April 1,
Northward-II May 6,
North-I June 3,
North-II July 8,
North-III Aug 5,
North-IV September 2,
Southward-I October 1,
Southward-II November 5
South-I December 3,
South-II January 7,
South-III February 4,
South-IV March 4
Karl
10(11(22
PS: I think the month names look better with a hyphen in them. I
don’t expect Mike to object to this.
From: East Carolina University Calendar
discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of zengyiping
Sent: 12 August 2009 04:44
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar
details without escapes
Dear Mike and calendar people,
Don't loss your temper and put a label on your discussing opponent.Putting a
jalel on opponent isn't debatting.
Ok,I ask you:how you got your winter length 117 days or 118 days or 119 days
?Write your detailed steps.May be you have sufficient reason.
Yiping Zeng 13/Aug/2009
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:54:49 +0000
> From: nkklrp@...
> Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar
details without escapes
> To: CALNDR-L@...
>
> Dear Yiping,
>
> You wrote:
>
> The June and december are month's name which represent two time pereods
and not two days.people say the wenter start from December,it is not equal
saying that winter
> start from Dec 1st.
>
> I reply:
>
> Saying that winter arrives with December is saying that, at least more or
less, winter starts when December starts. When Leigh Hunt, the 18th century
British writer (along with other writers too), said that June is full summer,
he was referring to the month of June. That month starts on June 1. Neither
Leigh Hunt, nor others throughout the temperate zone, think that, suddenly and
abruptly, summer (or southern hemisphere winter) starts on June 1. But they do
say that summer (or southern winter) arrives with June. They know it isn't
exact at that day, or at 12 midnight on that day.
>
>
> But you just consider winter start from Dec 1st.People' saying is a rough
estimate,but your calendar start winter on Dec 1st is a standard accurate
> day and consider it as a standard origin.
>
> I reply:
>
> Actually you're wrong there. In its fixed version, Subjective Seasonal's
North doen't always start on June 1 Gregorian, though it is centered on that
Gregorian date. In the fixed version it always starts on June 1.
>
> You wrote:
>
> It has been an other thing.This is what I say your Subjective Calendar's
base is not scientific.
>
> I reply:
>
> The widespread feeling that northern summer and southern winter arrive
with June, and that northern winter and southern summer arrive with December
may not be "scientific", but it's nevertheless widespread.
Terrestrial seasons don't precisely abide by the calendar--sorry if they aren't
scientific enough for you :-)
>
> But when you try to apply science beyond its legitimate range of application,
then you're a practitioner of pseudo-science.
>
> You continued:
>
> From moving new years day forward to Jan 14th I deduce to that your
winter's length is 90,not 117.It is right or wrong?
>
> I reply:
>
> It is wrong. Subjective Seasonal's North and South seasonal divisions are
119 days, in the fixed version, and 117 or 118 days in the various nonfixed
versions.
>
> But I dare say that if you move things around enough, you can change any
calendar to have year-divisions of whatever length you want it to have :-)
>
> By the way, in your last quoted sentence above, I still have no idea what
you're talking about. The length of my calendars' seasons is in no way affected
by where you move Gregorian New Year to.
>
> You continued:
>
> If it is right,you have to think about.
>
> I reply:
>
> You need to think about what you mean by "From moving new year's day
forward to Jan 14th I deduce that your winter's length is 90, not 117."
Think about whether you know what that means, and whether you're sure that it
means anything. If it means something, and if you know what it means, then
maybe you can more carefully say what it means.
>
> Yiping had said:
>
> Mike's Declination Calendar is a zero-timelag seasonal calendar, but it
has unequal four seasons. If its four seasons change to equal, it'll became a
world
> astronomical
> seasonal calendar. It'll become the same proposal as mine.
>
> I reply:
>
> If you sufficiently change anything, it will be the same as anything you
want it to be the same as. Before changes, however, there is little similarity
between those 2 calendars. They're both astronomical seasonal calendars. They
both center their major year divisions on equinoxes and solstices. Beyond that
there is no similarity. You propose a longitude calendar, and I propose a
declination calendar. Big difference.
>
> Karl had replied:
>
> I don’t think so. All Mike’s seasons begin on a Monday.
>
> Yiping replied:
>
> If we were to start each season either 2 weeks before one of Mike’s short
seasons or 2 weeks after the start of one of Mike’s long seasons. We’d normally
have
> four equal seasons of 13 weeks
>
> I reply:
>
> Yes, and "If wishes were horses..."
>
> If we were to start each season 2 weeks before or after my calendar does,
then we wouldn't any longer be able to call it my calendar, would we.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get free photo software from Windows Live
> http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009
您可以借助 Windows Live 整理、编辑和 共享您的照片。
--
Scanned by iCritical.
搜索本应是快乐的，不是么? 快乐搜索，有问必应！微软隆重推出! 立即试用！
|
|
Yiping's Date RE: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Yiping and Calendar People
It is amusing that Yiping chose 13 days, which is the difference
with the Julian Calendar in which January 1 occurs on January 14 Gregorian
until 2101.
I also see an incorrect date at the end of the note (even taking
into account the Chinese time zone). Perhaps it’s the date in Yiping’s
“Natural” calendar.
Karl
10(11(22 http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/yerm1.htm
From: East Carolina University Calendar
discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of zengyiping
Sent: 12 August 2009 14:33
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar
details without escapes
Dear Karl and calendar people,
I say that if the new year's day move forward 13 days .......only want to show
Mike's winter length 117 days is a random number,which relate to random new
year's day of Gregorian calendar.Moving 13 days is not neccessary.Moving 1 day
or 2 days or....also can show 117 is a random number.
Yiping Zeng 13/Aug/2009
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|
|
Leap Week vs. Leap Day RE: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Calendar People
I note that Yiping is using an analogy (of the shoe and foot), this
is not a valid method of argument, but does show his point of view.
Yiping thinks
I'll
reply :"Rounding 365.24219..... days to 365 or 366 only
cutting 0.24219...or adding 0.75781 which less than one day. It is
easy like hair cutting or nail cutting
Why not
I'll
reply :"Rounding 52.17745..... weeks to 52 or 53 only
cutting 0.17745...or adding 0.82255 which less than one week. It is
easy like hair cutting or nail cutting
But actually matters not just the length a single year that but
the length of any consecutive sequence of years. For example, the 193 years
1904 to 2196 inclusive (with 49 leap years) are over two days too long. This
results in the solstices and equinoxes moving back and forth in the Gregorian
calendar by about 53 hours. In a leap week calendar, this period (which is
referred to as the jitter) is at least one week. This may be tolerated in civil
use for the convenience of having all months begin on the same day of week.
In practice, the starts of seasons my fluctuate more than one week because of
weather variations.
Another objection to leap weeks is that the mean intercalation
period is not close to a whole number of years (5.63 years rather than 4.13
years) and this necessarily leads to a more complicated sequence of leap years.
Further complication is imposed by keeping the jitter down to its minimum of
one week.
Karl
10(11(22
From: East Carolina University Calendar
discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of zengyiping
Sent: 12 August 2009 13:40
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar
details without escapes
Dear Mike and all calendar people,
A Comment about leapweek
Cutting foot to fitting
shose
A Chinese saying goes "cutting foot to fittng shose".It is a foolish
suggestion.
Foot is innate,but shose is human-made.Cutting foot is a painful operation ,but
amend shose is more easy.Why don't amend shose to fit foot.? Do you agree?
The topical year is natural or astronomal and 7-days week is human-made. Why
cutting calendar year to 364 days to fit 7-days weeks and not opposit.
Some person may ask :" any calendar must has integer days,so must round
topical year(365.24219 ) to integer days ,such as 365 days(common
year )or 366 days
(leap year).This is cutting too."
I'll reply :"Rounding 365.24219..... to 365 or 366 only cutting
0.24219...or adding 0.75781 which less than one day.It
is easy like hair cutting or nail cutting
for beaty and it is painless. But cutting year to 364 days is more hard work.
It like a surgical operation. 364 day year need leapweek. In our calendar list
a lot of
calendar people discuss and suggest many leapweek rule, up to now no one of
them is simple and clear for conviniant use.
364 day year and leapweek seriously affect seasons. 5-week and 4-week month
break month even.7-day week come from region. It is a human-made system.
Calendar's
functions is counting dates and indicate seasons For this goal system of year
and month is suficient. 7-day week was added into Gregorian by region. Since
then
Gregorian became non-fixed for week. Year and week pruduce unsolved
contradictory.The World Calendar attempt to solve it using "out side
day".It is a method with
modifying 7-day week system.But religion people don't agree.
Leap week is an other method for solving this problem. But It seriously affect
year and season ,so seriously affect basic functions of calendar.
Since 7-day week is not neccasary for realizing calendar's basic
functions(counting dats and indecating seasons),why not get rid of the 7-day
week problem from world
calendar? New world calendar only need incluse "year and months
system"and left selecting weeks system to every country.They can continue
using 7-days week system or
try using reformed 7-week system or other new week system or select no using
any week system.
My "The Natural Seasonnal World Calendar "is a no week and leap day
calendar. If any country like 7-day week system it can continue using it. If
any country want use
5-day week new system(flexible) ,this calendar has prapered a suitable frame.
Yiping Zeng 13/Agu/2009
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:54:49 +0000
> From: nkklrp@...
> Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar
details without escapes
> To: CALNDR-L@...
>
> Dear Yiping,
>
> You wrote:
>
> The June and december are month's name which represent two time pereods
and not two days.people say the wenter start from December,it is not equal
saying that winter
> start from Dec 1st.
>
> I reply:
>
> Saying that winter arrives with December is saying that, at least more or
less, winter starts when December starts. When Leigh Hunt, the 18th century
British writer (along with other writers too), said that June is full summer,
he was referring to the month of June. That month starts on June 1. Neither
Leigh Hunt, nor others throughout the temperate zone, think that, suddenly and
abruptly, summer (or southern hemisphere winter) starts on June 1. But they do
say that summer (or southern winter) arrives with June. They know it isn't
exact at that day, or at 12 midnight on that day.
>
>
> But you just consider winter start from Dec 1st.People' saying is a rough
estimate,but your calendar start winter on Dec 1st is a standard accurate
> day and consider it as a standard origin.
>
> I reply:
>
> Actually you're wrong there. In its fixed version, Subjective Seasonal's
North doen't always start on June 1 Gregorian, though it is centered on that
Gregorian date. In the fixed version it always starts on June 1.
>
> You wrote:
>
> It has been an other thing.This is what I say your Subjective Calendar's
base is not scientific.
>
> I reply:
>
> The widespread feeling that northern summer and southern winter arrive
with June, and that northern winter and southern summer arrive with December
may not be "scientific", but it's nevertheless widespread.
Terrestrial seasons don't precisely abide by the calendar--sorry if they aren't
scientific enough for you :-)
>
> But when you try to apply science beyond its legitimate range of
application, then you're a practitioner of pseudo-science.
>
> You continued:
>
> From moving new years day forward to Jan 14th I deduce to that your
winter's length is 90,not 117.It is right or wrong?
>
> I reply:
>
> It is wrong. Subjective Seasonal's North and South seasonal divisions are
119 days, in the fixed version, and 117 or 118 days in the various nonfixed
versions.
>
> But I dare say that if you move things around enough, you can change any
calendar to have year-divisions of whatever length you want it to have :-)
>
> By the way, in your last quoted sentence above, I still have no idea what
you're talking about. The length of my calendars' seasons is in no way affected
by where you move Gregorian New Year to.
>
> You continued:
>
> If it is right,you have to think about.
>
> I reply:
>
> You need to think about what you mean by "From moving new year's day
forward to Jan 14th I deduce that your winter's length is 90, not 117."
Think about whether you know what that means, and whether you're sure that it
means anything. If it means something, and if you know what it means, then
maybe you can more carefully say what it means.
>
> Yiping had said:
>
> Mike's Declination Calendar is a zero-timelag seasonal calendar, but it
has unequal four seasons. If its four seasons change to equal, it'll became a
world
> astronomical
> seasonal calendar. It'll become the same proposal as mine.
>
> I reply:
>
> If you sufficiently change anything, it will be the same as anything you
want it to be the same as. Before changes, however, there is little similarity
between those 2 calendars. They're both astronomical seasonal calendars. They
both center their major year divisions on equinoxes and solstices. Beyond that
there is no similarity. You propose a longitude calendar, and I propose a
declination calendar. Big difference.
>
> Karl had replied:
>
> I don’t think so. All Mike’s seasons begin on a Monday.
>
> Yiping replied:
>
> If we were to start each season either 2 weeks before one of Mike’s short
seasons or 2 weeks after the start of one of Mike’s long seasons. We’d normally
have
> four equal seasons of 13 weeks
>
> I reply:
>
> Yes, and "If wishes were horses..."
>
> If we were to start each season 2 weeks before or after my calendar does,
then we wouldn't any longer be able to call it my calendar, would we.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get free photo software from Windows Live
> http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009
搜索本应是快乐的，不是么? 快乐搜索，有问必应！微软隆重推出! 立即试用！
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|
|
Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes
Dear Yiping and Calendar People,
Ok, sorry if I escalated things a bit. Of course that should be avoided, to keep the Internet pleasant. But "science" is much misused. Science is basically physical science, and that amounts to an orderly method for studying matter and motion. Anything said about other topics is neither scientific nor unscientific, because it's got nothing to do with science. If very many people in the temperate zones feel that summer and winter begin with June and December, calling those people unscientific is a gross misuse of the word "science". Summer is what we perceive or define it to be. Simple as that. Science has nothing to do with that.
You continue:
Ok,I ask you:how you got your winter length 117 days or 118 days or 119 days ?Write your detailed steps.May be you have sufficient reason.
I reply:
I described where the 117 and 118 days came from, when I first posted about the various versions of the Subjective Seasonal Calendar. I'll briefly summarize that here:
Determining the end and length of North:
For the nonfixed version of the Subjective Seasonal Calendar, North-I/1 is always on Gregorian June 1.
For the fixed version,
I've talked at length about how I'd keep the solar ecliptic longitude at North-I/1 as close as possible to the average solar ecliptic longitude on June 1, Gregorian. It's in my detailed specification of fixed Subjective Seasonal. I hope you're not going to ask me to repeat that. So let's just simplify by saying that North-I/1 is still on June 1, with the understanding that that is a simplification.
Given that starting date for North, and given the typical midrange seasonal timelag, the task, then, is to determine how long North is, and when it ends, which, of course, amount to the same thing.
I've suggested 2 ways to determine that:
1. Place the middle of North 38 days after the summer solstice, because 38 days is a good estimate for the typical midrange seasonal lag. Now you have the beginning and middle of North, and so it's easy to determine when its end is: Its end is as far after its middle as its middle is after its beginning. That gives you its length, which is the duration between its beginning and its ending.
OR
2. Find the end of North as follows: For any particular (fairly nearby) year, find the date and time such that the solar declination 38 days before that time is the same as it is 38 days before midnight UT, North-I/1. That date and time is the end of North. The length of North is the duration between its beginning and its end.
Choosing the length of South:
Again, two ways:
1. Give South the same length that North has.
OR
2. Determine the length of South by the same procedure that you used for determining the length of North.
Those two ways of doing both of those things result in four possible combinations. 1,1, 1,2, 2,1, and 2,2.
For simplicity, my proposal is 1,1.
It seems to me that procedure #1 gave 117 days for the length of North, and that procedure #2 gave 118 days. I'd have to recheck that to be sure.
Mike Ossipoff
L
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009
|
|
Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes
Dear Yipin and Calendar People,
> A Comment about leapweek
>
> Cutting foot to fitting shose
>
> A Chinese saying goes "cutting foot to fittng shose".It is a foolish suggestion.
>
> Foot is innate,but shose is human-made.Cutting foot is a painful operation ,but amend shose is more easy.Why don't amend shose to fit foot.? Do you agree?
I reply,
Sure, but I may or may not agree with your analogy of that with leapweek. I don't know yet, because I haven't yet read it.
You wrote:
> The topical year is natural or astronomal and 7-days week is human-made. Why cutting calendar year to 364 days to fit 7-days weeks and not opposit.
I reply:
That's easy to answer: Using a leapweek results in an acceptable amount of cyclical ecliptic movement of the calendar year (jitter). The resulting half-week maximum distance of the calendar year from where we want it to be is unimportant, negligible, when you consider the daily temperature fluctuations, and the annual temperature fluctuations for a particular day. So the leapweek doesn't do any harm.
You'd instead change the length of the week? There would be tremendous resistance to that. Much of it would be from religious groups, because the 7-day week is essential to some religious denominations. Any calendar reform proposal that changes the length of the week is knowingly designed to fail.
You continue:
Rounding 365.24219..... to 365 or 366 only cutting 0.24219...or adding 0.75781 which less than one day.It is easy like hair cutting or nail cutting
I reply:
You're pointing out that the jitter is less when the calendar year is 365 days, as compared to when it is 364 days. No argument there. However, the jitter of a 364-day year with leapweeks is environmentally negligible.
I'd like to comment on another subject: A fixed calendar requires either blank days or a leapweek. Blank days are unacceptable to some religious denominations, and are unacceptable to me also, because they make nonsense of the week. A leapweek is the way to go, for a fixed calendar. But it requires a change in the leapyear rule, and that complicates and adds to the calendar reform proposal. Therefore, a fixed calendar might be harder to get adopted. Or maybe not, because it offers so much added convenience. I like the convenience of a fixed calendar, though I'm not sure if it would make a reform proposal more, or less, winnable. [end of off-topic comment]
You continue:
>
> for beaty and it is painless. But cutting year to 364 days is more hard work. It like a surgical operation. 364 day year need leapweek. In our calendar list a lot of
>
> calendar people discuss and suggest many leapweek rule, up to now no one of them is simple and clear for conviniant use.
I reply:
I consider my "Minimum Distance" (or "Minimum Jitter") leapyear rule to be quite simple and natural.
>
> 364 day year and leapweek seriously affect seasons.
Not so. As I said, the jitter is negligible when you consider the ordinary natural fluctuation of temperatures.
You continue:
5-week and 4-week month break month even.7-day week come from region. [You mean religion]. It is a human-made system. Calendar's
>
> functions is counting dates and indicate seasons For this goal system of year and month is suficient. 7-day week was added into Gregorian by region.
I reply:
If you're suggesting that we get rid of the 7-day week, then, as I said, any such proposal would never have a chance of acceptance.
You continued:
Since then
>
> Gregorian became non-fixed for week. Year and week pruduce unsolved contradictory.The World Calendar attempt to solve it using "out side day".It is a method with
>
> modifying 7-day week system.But religion people don't agree.
I reply:
I'm not saying that I'm not religious, but I don't agree either, on grounds other than religious grounds: As I said, a blank day makes nonsense out of the week. That's unacceptable.
>
> Leap week is an other method for solving this problem. But It seriously affect year and season ,so seriously affect basic functions of calendar.
No, as I said, the average temperature variation over the jitter-timespan is negligible compared to natural daily temperature fluctuaion, and annual fluctuation of the temperature for a particular date. The jitter of a leapyear calendar doesn't significantly affect the calendar's representation of the seasons.
>
> Since 7-day week is not neccasary for realizing calendar's basic functions(counting dats and indecating seasons),why not get rid of the 7-day week problem from world
>
> calendar?
Because the resulting calendar would have no chance of acceptance.
Myself, I don't categorically oppose a change in the week (if we disregard the fact that a different week would have no chance of acceptance, by some major religious denominations). A 10-day week could bring even more calendrical convenience. But forget it: It would never be accepted.
Of course, aside from that, there would have to be much public discussion before any week-change, so that the new week wouldn't be unacceptably inconvenient as a practical workweek.
You continue:
New world calendar only need incluse "year and months system"and left selecting weeks system to every country.They can continue using 7-days week system or
I reply:
You're suggesting a calendar with no weeks? Or maybe with different weeks. Either way, the daily requirements of life, related to the civil calendar in international use, would be a great hardship to people trying to live their lives by their own religious calendar using the old 7-day week, if a different week, or no week, were in use.
>
> try using reformed 7-week system or other new week system or select no using any week system.
>
> My "The Natural Seasonnal World Calendar "is a no week and leap day calendar. If any country like 7-day week system it can continue using it.
No, that's easier said than done. If the civil calendar in use has different (or no) weeks, then that would cause a hardahip for any religious group trying to live their lives by the 7-day week.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009
|
|
Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day
Dear Yiping and Calendar People,
You wrote:
> I say that if the new year's day move forward 13 days .......only want to show Mike's winter length 117 days is a random number,which relate to random new year's day of Gregorian calendar.Moving 13 days is not neccessary.Moving 1 day or 2 days or....also can show 117 is a random number.
I reply:
Ok, now I believe that I know what your point is. I wasn't trying to evade answering you before--I just didn't understand your point. Now I do. So I'll reply now:
Here's what you're saying:
Consider an alternative universe differing from ours in only one respect: The Gregorian calendar's New Year's Day, January 1, occurs on a day that has a different name (such as January 14th) in our own Gregorian Calendar.
You point out that if the displacement from our Gregorian calendar is part of a month, then the solar ecliptic longitude corresponding to our June 1 won't occur at the beginning of a month.
You point out that, when defining the beginning of summer according to a month, people tend to use a whole month, saying, for instance that "June is full summer". In other words, the public perception will be that summer starts when some particular month starts.
Therefore, with this alternate universe's displaced Gregorian Calendar, people are going to have a different notion of when summer starts.
And, if I based my Subjective Seasonal Calendar proposal on that public perception, then of course my calendar would be different from how it is in our own universe. In particular, the length of North would be different.
My answer: So what?
In your alternate universe, people have a different definition of summer. A Subjective Seasonal Calendar designed for that universe would be based on that definition of summer. Yes, it would be different from how it is in our universe, with our Gregorian Calendar. So what?
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Get your vacation photos on your phone!
http://windowsliveformobile.com/en-us/photos/default.aspx?&OCID=0809TL-HM
|
|
Defining Summer (for anti-seasonalists)
|
|
Re: Defining Summer (for anti-seasonalists)
Rich text, Mike.
On 8/12/09, MIKE OSSIPOFF < nkklrp@...> wrote:
>
> < 677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0692A31F@...>
> < BAY138-W837D31704D7D9D24B340FD90F0@...>
> < BLU134-W1297420422BAE6B67E1F49CF0C0@...>
> < BAY138-W1088DD2106F42216DF2814D90A0@...>
> <BLU134-W2130D9671317E D04C3A807CF0 A0@...>
> < BAY138-W184928C8A5E0BB9395119CD9090@...>
> < BLU134-W2956A652BC3DF0366EEA7DCF090@...>
> < BAY138-W8AC3BD36B24FCE566C452D9060@...>
> < BLU134-W2747AAB8B11E94F147E8F0CF060@...>
> < BAY138-W5DA6CA7E3693E36A782C1D9070@...>
> < BLU134-W51DC327D2726CE595D195CF070@...>
> A< BAY138-W11CB27803506D6701EBE2FD9040@...>
> < 677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D069B6ABB@...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2009 22:45:03.0428 (UTC)
> FILETIME=[8804D040:01CA1B9E]
>
>
>
> Dear Calendar People=2C
> =20
> (This answer was suggested by my answer to Yiping)
> =20
> =20
> Anti-seasonalists (people who oppose a terrestrial-seasonal calendar) objec=
> t that calendrical terrestrial seasons wouldn't be meaningful=2C because of=
> the variation in seasonal time-lag=2C and=2C in general=2C different clima=
> te-timing in different regions.
> =20
> They say=2C "So when your calendar says when summer starts=2C it's going to=
> be wrong for some places."
> =20
> But not as many places as you might think--because who says when summer sta=
> rts?:
> =20
> I previously spoke of how the typical midrange seasonal timelag is 1.25 mon=
> ths=2C throughout the temperate zones.
> I should give more emphasis to something else=2C which has an overlooked im=
> plication: I've already said it=2C but let me repeat it one more time here:
> =20
> Thoughout the temperate regions=2C there is widespread agreement that north=
> ern summer and southern winter arrive with June=2C and that northern winter=
> and southern summer arrive with December.
> =20
> You say the timelag varies within those zones? But if people feel=2C for in=
> stance=2C that northern summer arrives with June=2C and if they feel that i=
> n counries with different timelags=2C that just means that those different =
> countries have different definitions of summer. Therefore=2C a calendar who=
> se "North" season starts on June 1 can be meaningful and accurate in every =
> one of those countries=2C which define summer slightly differently in terms=
> of the annual climate-sequence. If they all say that northern summer and s=
> outhern winter arrive with June 1=2C then it does=2C because they say so. T=
> hat's the nature of a definition.
> =20
> Mike Ossipoff
> =20
> =20
> =20
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get free photo software from Windows Live
> http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=3DPID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:e=> n-US:SI_PH_software:082009=
>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
Mark J. Reed < markjreed@...>
|
|
Re: Defining Summer (for anti-seasonalists)
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Mark,
Ok, I've just changed back to rich text. Because I've been using plain text, it has become today's default, but, for this message I've changed it to rich text (and it will automatically remain so for subsequent postings unless I change it back).
Now I'm going to delete the spurious garbage from my post, in order to find out if the posting will again be garbaged-up when I post it in rich text. So here are the first several paragraphs, with the spurious garbage deleted, and with the message posted in rich text:
---------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:50:07 -0400 > From: markjreed@...> Subject: Re: Defining Summer (for anti-seasonalists) > To: CALNDR-L@...> > Rich text, Mike. > > > On 8/12/09, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: > > > > Dear Calendar People > > (This answer was suggested by my answer to Yiping) > > Anti-seasonalists (people who oppose a terrestrial-seasonal calendar) objec= > > t that calendrical terrestrial seasons wouldn't be meaningful because of > > the variation in seasonal time-lag and in general different climate-timing in different regions. > > They say "So when your calendar says when summer starts it's going to > > be wrong for some places." > > But not as many places as you might think--because who says when summer starts?: > > I previously spoke of how the typical midrange seasonal timelag is 1.25 months throughout the temperate zones. > > I should give more emphasis to something else which has an overlooked implication: I've already said it but let me repeat it one more time here:
[Well that should be enough of the text to get an idea of whether it will again be garbaged-up, now that I've changed to rich text]
Mike Ossipoff
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®. Try it now.
|
|
Re: Defining Summer (for anti-seasonalists)
No problems on that message.
On 8/12/09, MIKE OSSIPOFF < nkklrp@...> wrote:
>
>
> Mark,
>
>
>
> Ok, I've just changed back to rich text. Because I've been using plain text,
> it has become today's default, but, for this message I've changed it to rich
> text (and it will automatically remain so for subsequent postings unless I
> change it back).
>
>
>
> Now I'm going to delete the spurious garbage from my post, in order to find
> out if the posting will again be garbaged-up when I post it in rich text. So
> here are the first several paragraphs, with the spurious garbage deleted,
> and with the message posted in rich text:
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:50:07 -0400
>> From: markjreed@...
>> Subject: Re: Defining Summer (for anti-seasonalists)
>> To: CALNDR-L@...
>>
>> Rich text, Mike.
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/09, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>> >
>
>> > Dear Calendar People
>
>> > (This answer was suggested by my answer to Yiping)
>
>
>> > Anti-seasonalists (people who oppose a terrestrial-seasonal calendar)
>> > objec=
>> > t that calendrical terrestrial seasons wouldn't be meaningful because of
>> > the variation in seasonal time-lag and in general different
>> > climate-timing in different regions.
>
>> > They say "So when your calendar says when summer starts it's going to
>> > be wrong for some places."
>
>> > But not as many places as you might think--because who says when summer
>> > starts?:
>
>> > I previously spoke of how the typical midrange seasonal timelag is 1.25
>> > months throughout the temperate zones.
>> > I should give more emphasis to something else which has an overlooked
>> > implication: I've already said it but let me repeat it one more time
>> > here:
>
>
> [Well that should be enough of the text to get an idea of whether it will
> again be garbaged-up, now that I've changed to rich text]
>
>
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®.
> http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_express:082009--
Sent from my mobile device
Mark J. Reed < markjreed@...>
|
|
Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Karl and Calendar People,
I'm a bit late with my date-conversion examples for my calendar proposals. The delay is largely because some things (starting-date & leapweek-placement) should be done differently from how I've done them, for reasons that are a bit beyond my understanding. I was going to change the proposals accordingly, but then I decided that, if I start making changes without knowing why, I'll most likely botch it anyway. The choice of the exact modifications should be done by someone who understands them and the reasons for them. So, I decided, I should leave my starting date and leapweek placement as-is, because if I modify them, I won't really know what I'm doing.
So, with the understanding that these choices aren't optimal, let me say how I deal with those things in my proposals, in their current form:
Leapweek placement:
I don't really have a proposal for where in the year leapweek should be placed, in the fixed versions (which are the only ones that use a leapweek). So any choice of leapweek-placement wouldn't amount to a modification.
For the nonfixed versions, I've placed leapday before North begins, so that North-I/1 will always be on June 1. Specifically, I've placed it in the northern-hemisphere wintertime, because that's what we're used to.
Starting Date:
For fixed versions, I start the new calendar, place its first New Year's Day, on the Monday in 2000 A.D. that minimizes the magnitude of d, in the new calendar's first calendar year.
For nonfixed versions, I start the new calendar on a day in 2000, such that North-I/1 will be on Gregorian June 1.
[conclusion of leapweek-placement and starting-date descriptions]
Now, it's just a matter of finding the actual starting dates and initial d values. It's something that I haven't done yet, but I'll determine it and post it soon. I'm going to have company from Friday till Tuesday. Though I'm preparing for that, maybe I can post my date conversions before the visit. But, if not, then I'll do so right after the visit.
By the way, if 77/62 is more accurate than 1.24219, as the tropical year with respect to the ecliptic longitude corresponding to North-I/1 of the declination calendar, then of course I adopt 77/62 as a replacement for 1.24219
Mike Ossipoff
Dear Yiping, Mike and Calendar People
I expect the months of Mike’s declination calendar to begin on the nearest Monday to the following dates or possibly the second nearest Monday if almost as near, depending on the leap week rule. Here I assume the leap week is in the last month of the North season (North-IV)
Northward-I February 18,
Northward-II March 25
North-I April 22,
North-II May 27,
North-III June 24,
North-IV July 22
Southward-I August 20,
Southward-II September 24
South-I October 22,
South-II November 26,
South-III December 24,
South-IV January 21
If two weeks were added to the start and end of the short seasons taken from the long seasons, the corresponding dates would be
Northward-I February 4,
Northward-II March 4,
Northward-III April 8
North-I May 6,
North-II June 3,
North-III July 8
Southward-I August 6,
Southward-II September 3,
Southward-III October 8
South-I November 5,
South-II December 3,
South-III January 7
Such a calendar would not be Mike’s. It could be called the Equal Season Declination Leap Week Calendar (ESDLWC).
I’ve put the long (5-week) month to the middle of each season. So the long month has the solstice or equinox within it. The leap week occurs in North-III.
I don’t know how Yiping got his new year suggestion of January 14th from. January 7th (possibly January 5th) would seem more appropriate or even February 4th , which is close to the Chinese New year. January 14th seems to be appropriate to a Hindu-based sidereal solar calendar. Also it is the current new year in the Julian Calendar.
A subjective Season calendar with a six-week lag from the unequal season declination calendar would give the following corresponding dates:
Northward-I April 1,
Northward-II May 6,
North-I June 3,
North-II July 8,
North-III Aug 5,
North-IV September 2,
Southward-I October 1,
Southward-II November 5
South-I December 3,
South-II January 7,
South-III February 4,
South-IV March 4
Karl
10(11(22
PS: I think the month names look better with a hyphen in them. I don’t expect Mike to object to this.
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of zengyiping
Sent: 12 August 2009 04:44
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes
Dear Mike and calendar people,
Don't loss your temper and put a label on your discussing opponent.Putting a jalel on opponent isn't debatting.
Ok,I ask you:how you got your winter length 117 days or 118 days or 119 days ?Write your detailed steps.May be you have sufficient reason.
Yiping Zeng 13/Aug/2009
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:54:49 +0000 > From: nkklrp@...> Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes > To: CALNDR-L@...> > Dear Yiping, > > You wrote: > > The June and december are month's name which represent two time pereods and not two days.people say the wenter start from December,it is not equal saying that winter > start from Dec 1st. > > I reply: > > Saying that winter arrives with December is saying that, at least more or less, winter starts when December starts. When Leigh Hunt, the 18th century British writer (along with other writers too), said that June is full summer, he was referring to the month of June. That month starts on June 1. Neither Leigh Hunt, nor others throughout the temperate zone, think that, suddenly and abruptly, summer (or southern hemisphere winter) starts on June 1. But they do say that summer (or southern winter) arrives with June. They know it isn't exact at that day, or at 12 midnight on that day. > > > But you just consider winter start from Dec 1st.People' saying is a rough estimate,but your calendar start winter on Dec 1st is a standard accurate > day and consider it as a standard origin. > > I reply: > > Actually you're wrong there. In its fixed version, Subjective Seasonal's North doen't always start on June 1 Gregorian, though it is centered on that Gregorian date. In the fixed version it always starts on June 1. > > You wrote: > > It has been an other thing.This is what I say your Subjective Calendar's base is not scientific. > > I reply: > > The widespread feeling that northern summer and southern winter arrive with June, and that northern winter and southern summer arrive with December may not be "scientific", but it's nevertheless widespread. Terrestrial seasons don't precisely abide by the calendar--sorry if they aren't scientific enough for you :-) > > But when you try to apply science beyond its legitimate range of application, then you're a practitioner of pseudo-science. > > You continued: > > From moving new years day forward to Jan 14th I deduce to that your winter's length is 90,not 117.It is right or wrong? > > I reply: > > It is wrong. Subjective Seasonal's North and South seasonal divisions are 119 days, in the fixed version, and 117 or 118 days in the various nonfixed versions. > > But I dare say that if you move things around enough, you can change any calendar to have year-divisions of whatever length you want it to have :-) > > By the way, in your last quoted sentence above, I still have no idea what you're talking about. The length of my calendars' seasons is in no way affected by where you move Gregorian New Year to. > > You continued: > > If it is right,you have to think about. > > I reply: > > You need to think about what you mean by "From moving new year's day forward to Jan 14th I deduce that your winter's length is 90, not 117." Think about whether you know what that means, and whether you're sure that it means anything. If it means something, and if you know what it means, then maybe you can more carefully say what it means. > > Yiping had said: > > Mike's Declination Calendar is a zero-timelag seasonal calendar, but it has unequal four seasons. If its four seasons change to equal, it'll became a world > astronomical > seasonal calendar. It'll become the same proposal as mine. > > I reply: > > If you sufficiently change anything, it will be the same as anything you want it to be the same as. Before changes, however, there is little similarity between those 2 calendars. They're both astronomical seasonal calendars. They both center their major year divisions on equinoxes and solstices. Beyond that there is no similarity. You propose a longitude calendar, and I propose a declination calendar. Big difference. > > Karl had replied: > > I don’t think so. All Mike’s seasons begin on a Monday. > > Yiping replied: > > If we were to start each season either 2 weeks before one of Mike’s short seasons or 2 weeks after the start of one of Mike’s long seasons. We’d normally have > four equal seasons of 13 weeks > > I reply: > > Yes, and "If wishes were horses..." > > If we were to start each season 2 weeks before or after my calendar does, then we wouldn't any longer be able to call it my calendar, would we. > > Mike Ossipoff > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get free photo software from Windows Live > http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009
您可以借助 Windows Live 整理、编辑和 共享您的照片。
-- Scanned by iCritical.
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. Try Bing now.
|
|
Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Mike, Yiping and Calendar People
Comments below:
From: East Carolina University Calendar
discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE
OSSIPOFF
Sent: 13 August 2009 00:42
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar
details without escapes
Dear Karl and Calendar People,
I'm a bit late with my date-conversion examples for my calendar proposals. The
delay is largely because some things (starting-date
& leapweek-placement) should be done differently from how I've done
them, for reasons that are a bit beyond my understanding. I was going to change
the proposals accordingly, but then I decided that, if I start making changes
without knowing why, I'll most likely botch it anyway. The choice of the
exact modifications should be done by someone who understands them and the
reasons for them. So, I decided, I should leave my starting date and
leapweek placement as-is, because if I modify them, I won't really know
what I'm doing.
So, with the understanding that these choices aren't optimal, let me say how I
deal with those things in my proposals, in their current form:
Leapweek placement:
I don't really have a proposal for where in the year leapweek should be placed,
in the fixed versions (which are the only ones that use a leapweek). So any
choice of leapweek-placement wouldn't amount to a modification.
For the nonfixed versions, I've placed leapday before North begins, so that
North-I/1 will always be on June 1. Specifically, I've placed it in the
northern-hemisphere wintertime, because that's what we're used to.
I thought you were dealing with the Declination Calendar rather
than a Subjective Season Calendar hence North-I would begin around April 22.
Starting Date:
For fixed versions, I start the new calendar, place its first New Year's Day,
on the Monday in 2000 A.D. that minimizes the magnitude of d, in the new
calendar's first calendar year.
This seems to very complicated.
Why not make it the nearest Monday to a fixed date in the
non-fixed calendar such as its new year?
You can then set the value of d(2000) to satisfy this.
For nonfixed versions, I start the new calendar on a day in 2000, such that
North-I/1 will be on Gregorian June 1.
[conclusion of leapweek-placement and starting-date descriptions]
Now, it's just a matter of finding the actual starting dates and initial d
values. It's something that I haven't done yet, but I'll determine it and post
it soon. I'm going to have company from Friday till Tuesday. Though I'm
preparing for that, maybe I can post my date conversions before the visit. But,
if not, then I'll do so right after the visit.
By the way, if 77/62 is more accurate than 1.24219, as the tropical year with
respect to the ecliptic longitude corresponding to North-I/1 of the
declination calendar, then of course I adopt 77/62 as a replacement for 1.24219
77/62 may be more accurate for 1 June, but I’m not sure
about 22 April. To find other simple fractions go to
http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/lweek1.htm#cycle
select a row from the table with a desired mean year
multiply the number of leap weeks by seven to get the numerator
use the number of years as the denominator.
If the number of years is divisible by seven, you can then cancel
7 out of the fraction.
Suppose you did choose 77/62 for the fixed calendar, you could then
choose 15/62 for the non-fixed calendar and have a d-type rule for both such
that the fixed calendar new year is always the nearest Monday to the non-fixed
calendar new year. You will also have only 62 values of d(2000) to choose
between, because only d values that give rise to different integer accumulators
have different effect. Similar considerations apply to other fractions.
Here are some other fractions:
Fixed Non-Fixed Mean
Year Years in Cycle
159/128 31/128 365.2421875 896
518/417 101/417 365.242206… 417
364/293 71/293 365.242321… 293
41/33 8/33 365.242424…
231
I’ll be away till September. Irv and other calendar people
may help Mike with the leap year rules, bearing in mind my note to convert
between d and the accumulator.
Karl
10(11(23
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|
|
Re: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Mike and calendar people, Today I only reply you about one problem. I wrote: From moving new year's day foreward to Jan 14th,I deduce to that your winter's length is 90,not 117. it is right or wrong? You reply: It is wrong? I reply you again: Why? According your step I show you as follow: new year's day as Jan 1st new year's day as Jan 14th North's start Jun 1st North's start Jun 14th north solstice Jun 21st north solstice Jun 21st distance 21-1=20 distance 21-14=7 timelag 38 timelag 38 half of North 20+38=58 half of North 7+38=45 length of season 58*2=116 length of season 45*2=90 Where wrong? Yiping Zeng 13/Aug/2009 > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:28:31 +0000 > From: nkklrp@...> Subject: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day > To: CALNDR-L@...> > > Dear Yiping and Calendar People, > > You wrote: > > > I say that if the new year's day move forward 13 days .......only want to show Mike's winter length 117 days is a random number,which relate to random new year's day of Gregorian calendar.Moving 13 days is not neccessary.Moving 1 day or 2 days or....also can show 117 is a random number. > > I reply: > > Ok, now I believe that I know what your point is. I wasn't trying to evade answering you before--I just didn't understand your point. Now I do. So I'll reply now: > > Here's what you're saying: > > Consider an alternative universe differing from ours in only one respect: The Gregorian calendar's New Year's Day, January 1, occurs on a day that has a different name (such as January 14th) in our own Gregorian Calendar. > > You point out that if the displacement from our Gregorian calendar is part of a month, then the solar ecliptic longitude corresponding to our June 1 won't occur at the beginning of a month. > > You point out that, when defining the beginning of summer according to a month, people tend to use a whole month, saying, for instance that "June is full summer". In other words, the public perception will be that summer starts when some particular month starts. > > Therefore, with this alternate universe's displaced Gregorian Calendar, people are going to have a different notion of when summer starts. > > And, if I based my Subjective Seasonal Calendar proposal on that public perception, then of course my calendar would be different from how it is in our own universe. In particular, the length of North would be different. > > My answer: So what? > > In your alternate universe, people have a different definition of summer. A Subjective Seasonal Calendar designed for that universe would be based on that definition of summer. Yes, it would be different from how it is in our universe, with our Gregorian Calendar. So what? > > Mike Ossipoff > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your vacation photos on your phone! > http://windowsliveformobile.com/en-us/photos/default.aspx?&OCID=0809TL-HM
您可以借助 Windows Live 整理、编辑和 共享您的照片。
|
|
Re: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Yiping and Calendar People
Thank you Yiping for showing your reasoning. It was not obvious
that you meant this.
There is a minor flaw in it. Given that the season includes Jun
1st/14th, the day of June 21st was not counted
in the season. If it were counted once, the figures would be 117 and 91 days
respectively
Karl
10(11(23
From: East Carolina University Calendar
discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of zengyiping
Sent: 13 August 2009 14:30
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day
Dear Mike and calendar people,
Today I only reply you about one problem.
I wrote:
From moving new year's day foreward to Jan 14th,I deduce to that your winter's
length is 90,not 117. it is right or wrong?
You reply:
It is wrong?
I reply you again:
Why?
According your step I show you as follow:
new year's day as Jan 1st
new year's day as Jan 14th
North's start Jun
1st North's
start Jun 14th
north solstice Jun
21st north
solstice Jun 21st
distance
21-1=20
distance 21-14=7
timelag
38
timelag 38
half of North
20+38=58 half of
North 7+38=45
length of season 58*2=116
length of season 45*2=90
Where wrong?
Yiping Zeng 13/Aug/2009
> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:28:31 +0000
> From: nkklrp@...
> Subject: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day
> To: CALNDR-L@...
>
>
> Dear Yiping and Calendar People,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > I say that if the new year's day move forward 13 days .......only
want to show Mike's winter length 117 days is a random number,which relate to
random new year's day of Gregorian calendar.Moving 13 days is not
neccessary.Moving 1 day or 2 days or....also can show 117 is a random number.
>
> I reply:
>
> Ok, now I believe that I know what your point is. I wasn't trying to evade
answering you before--I just didn't understand your point. Now I do. So I'll
reply now:
>
> Here's what you're saying:
>
> Consider an alternative universe differing from ours in only one respect:
The Gregorian calendar's New Year's Day, January 1, occurs on a day that has a
different name (such as January 14th) in our own Gregorian Calendar.
>
> You point out that if the displacement from our Gregorian calendar is part
of a month, then the solar ecliptic longitude corresponding to our June 1 won't
occur at the beginning of a month.
>
> You point out that, when defining the beginning of summer according to a
month, people tend to use a whole month, saying, for instance that "June
is full summer". In other words, the public perception will be that summer
starts when some particular month starts.
>
> Therefore, with this alternate universe's displaced Gregorian Calendar,
people are going to have a different notion of when summer starts.
>
> And, if I based my Subjective Seasonal Calendar proposal on that public
perception, then of course my calendar would be different from how it is in our
own universe. In particular, the length of North would be different.
>
> My answer: So what?
>
> In your alternate universe, people have a different definition of summer.
A Subjective Seasonal Calendar designed for that universe would be based on
that definition of summer. Yes, it would be different from how it is in our
universe, with our Gregorian Calendar. So what?
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your vacation photos on your phone!
>
http://windowsliveformobile.com/en-us/photos/default.aspx?&OCID=0809TL-HM
您可以借助 Windows Live 整理、编辑和 共享您的照片。
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|
|
Re: Declination Calendar Month Table RE: Declination calendar details without escapes
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Karl and Calendar People,
I'd said,
For the nonfixed versions, I've placed leapday before North begins, so that North-I/1 will always be on June 1. Specifically, I've placed it in the northern-hemisphere wintertime, because that's what we're used to.
You wrote:
I thought you were dealing with the Declination Calendar rather than a Subjective Season Calendar hence North-I would begin around April 22.
I reply:
I
Yes, that occurred to me afterwards, that now the declination calendar is the one I'm talking about. So, for a nonfixed dec calendar, I'd choose a starting date in 2000 that would put North-I/1 initially as close as possible to the desired ecliptic longitude for the dec calendar. For simplicity, in the nonfixed version, I'd still use the Gregorian leapyear system, but I have no particular preference for where in the year the leapday is.
I'd said:
Starting Date:
For fixed versions, I start the new calendar, place its first New Year's Day, on the Monday in 2000 A.D. that minimizes the magnitude of d, in the new calendar's first calendar year.
You wrote:
This seems to very complicated.
Why not make it the nearest Monday to a fixed date in the non-fixed calendar such as its new year?
You can then set the value of d(2000) to satisfy this.
I reply:
The wording of the actual proposal will just state a date in 2000, for the new calendar's first New Year's Day. And the initial value of d.
You wrote:
77/62 may be more accurate for 1 June, but I’m not sure about 22 April. To find other simple fractions go to
I reply:
Oh, I was thinking that 77/62 was for the dec calendar. Then I'll check the website you mention, to find an accurate number for the dec calendar's important ecliptic longitude.
Mike Ossipoff
Get your vacation photos on your phone! Click here.
|
|
Re: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Yiping and Calendar People,
You wrote:
Today I only reply you about one problem. I wrote: From moving new year's day foreward to Jan 14th,I deduce to that your winter's length is 90,not 117. it is right or wrong? You reply: It is wrong? I reply you again: Why?
I reply:
If you'd read the message that you're replying to, you'd know why. I don't know how to try to talk to someone who keeps repeating the same statements, without even looking at the answers that have been given.
You continued:
According your step I show you as follow: new year's day as Jan 1st new year's day as Jan 14th North's start Jun 1st North's start Jun 14th north solstice Jun 21st north solstice Jun 21st distance 21-1=20 distance 21-14=7 timelag 38 timelag 38 half of North 20+38=58 half of North 7+38=45 length of season 58*2=116 length of season 45*2=90 Where wrong? I reply:
Hello? In the posting to which you are were replying, I stated that, I initally didn't understand your point. But I said that I now understand it, and was replying to it. You're apparently forgetting that I saids that.
What's "wrong" with what you said above? What's "wrong" was that your point wasn't clearly made. That's why neither I, nor other list-members, understood it. However, in the posting that you're "replying" to, I stated that I previously didn't understand your point, but that I now understand it, and that I'd reply to it in the same posting that I was at that time writing. And I did reply to it. Where have you been?
I clearly said in the posting that you're "replying" to:
In the alternative universe where the Gregorian near starts 13 days later, with respect to our own Gregorian year, where the beginnings of months occur 13 days away from where they occur for us, the public perception and definition of what summer means might be different. Since Subjective Seasonal is based on the public perception of when summer starts, then, necessarily, in your alternative universe, Subjective Seasonal will be different from how it is in our own universe.
I'm repeating what I said in my previous posting. I shouldn't have to do that. Nor will I continue doing it.
I said "in the posting that you were replying to". I speak loosely when I say that you're "replying" to that posting. Of course you aren't replying to it at all. You're instead merely repeating the same statements, in apparent ignorance of the answer that was given in the posting that you're "replying" to.
I don't know what's wrong with you, Yiping. What can I say? Read the posting that was on your screen when you clicked on "reply". That's all I can suggest.
Mike Ossipoff
Get free photo software from Windows Live Click here.
|
|
Re: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Karl ,Mike and calendar people, Yes,Jun 21st ought to count in length. I show this process only for indicating length of North season of Mike's calendar (117) is a radom number,not a must being number. Yiping Zeng 14/Aug/2009
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:39:38 +0100 From: karl.palmen@...Subject: Re: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day To: CALNDR-L@...
Dear Yiping and Calendar People
Thank you Yiping for showing your reasoning. It was not obvious
that you meant this.
There is a minor flaw in it. Given that the season includes Jun
1st/14th, the day of June 21st was not counted
in the season. If it were counted once, the figures would be 117 and 91 days
respectively
Karl
10(11(23
From: East Carolina University Calendar
discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of zengyiping
Sent: 13 August 2009 14:30
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day
Dear Mike and calendar people,
Today I only reply you about one problem.
I wrote:
From moving new year's day foreward to Jan 14th,I deduce to that your winter's
length is 90,not 117. it is right or wrong?
You reply:
It is wrong?
I reply you again:
Why?
According your step I show you as follow:
new year's day as Jan 1st
new year's day as Jan 14th
North's start Jun
1st North's
start Jun 14th
north solstice Jun
21st north
solstice Jun 21st
distance
21-1=20
distance 21-14=7
timelag
38
timelag 38
half of North
20+38=58 half of
North 7+38=45
length of season 58*2=116
length of season 45*2=90
Where wrong?
Yiping Zeng 13/Aug/2009
> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:28:31 +0000
> From: nkklrp@...
> Subject: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day
> To: CALNDR-L@...
>
>
> Dear Yiping and Calendar People,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > I say that if the new year's day move forward 13 days .......only
want to show Mike's winter length 117 days is a random number,which relate to
random new year's day of Gregorian calendar.Moving 13 days is not
neccessary.Moving 1 day or 2 days or....also can show 117 is a random number.
>
> I reply:
>
> Ok, now I believe that I know what your point is. I wasn't trying to evade
answering you before--I just didn't understand your point. Now I do. So I'll
reply now:
>
> Here's what you're saying:
>
> Consider an alternative universe differing from ours in only one respect:
The Gregorian calendar's New Year's Day, January 1, occurs on a day that has a
different name (such as January 14th) in our own Gregorian Calendar.
>
> You point out that if the displacement from our Gregorian calendar is part
of a month, then the solar ecliptic longitude corresponding to our June 1 won't
occur at the beginning of a month.
>
> You point out that, when defining the beginning of summer according to a
month, people tend to use a whole month, saying, for instance that "June
is full summer". In other words, the public perception will be that summer
starts when some particular month starts.
>
> Therefore, with this alternate universe's displaced Gregorian Calendar,
people are going to have a different notion of when summer starts.
>
> And, if I based my Subjective Seasonal Calendar proposal on that public
perception, then of course my calendar would be different from how it is in our
own universe. In particular, the length of North would be different.
>
> My answer: So what?
>
> In your alternate universe, people have a different definition of summer.
A Subjective Seasonal Calendar designed for that universe would be based on
that definition of summer. Yes, it would be different from how it is in our
universe, with our Gregorian Calendar. So what?
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your vacation photos on your phone!
>
http://windowsliveformobile.com/en-us/photos/default.aspx?&OCID=0809TL-HM
您可以借助 Windows Live 整理、编辑和 共享您的照片。
--
Scanned by iCritical.
聊天+搜索+邮箱 想要轻松出游,手机MSN帮你搞定! 立刻下载！
|
|
Re: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Mike and calendar people, Your today's reply said that if we live in a universe which new year is on our Jan 14th,our North season of Subjectical Calendar would be 90 days. But we realy live in our universe which new year is Jan 1st,so our North season of Subjective Calendar must be 116 days(then change to 117 or 118 or 119 for fixed or non-fixed goals). If your meaning is this,I would say that you are wrong.We can contininue argue if you want. Now I reply your last posts: In chinese languege word "scientific" means a thing has nature which has definite definition in special domain of science.In common speaking it is saying that something has sufficient reason for being. A random thing can't be a sufficient reason for other thing or matter. If you don't like this word,I can avoid it and restead it with another word such as "having sufficient reason." You wrote: Summer is what we perceive or define it to be.Simple as that.Science hasnothingto do with that. I reply: You had said that subjective seasons are thermal seasons. wasn't it? Can or can't give a quantitative definition (temperature range) for four seasons? I heard four definitions: Summer day's average temperature in five days higher than 20 degree C Winter day's average temperature in five days lower than 10 degree C Spring day's average temperature in five days between 10 and 20 degree C Autumn day's average temperature in five days between 10 and 20 degree C But I don't know how to get day's average temperature in five days? Even though we have got these informations,their tenperrature curve may don't be smooth sinusoidal curve . So can't use for dividing seasons of calendar year. Then, how can make a subjective worlg calendar only according to rondam start of season? You wrote that for getting the North length the first step is "given that starting date for North and given the typical midrange seasonal timelag. I reply: The ending date for North is the result of next step. I want ask:if given ending date for first step ,what result would be gotten and cann't you give ending date for forst step? Problem about leap week: You wrote:you can't accept blank days also because they make nonsense of the week. I reply:The 7-day week system is a successive system.Adding blank day into it will break its succession.Then 7-day week system become a flexibal system. A flexibal system can't be say nonsense. Leap day is a flexible year system also. Isn't it? Though it is,I don't agree 7-day week with blank day. My view point is that for world calendar no need includ unified week system,because the function of world calendar is counting date and showing seasons. For working and resting system ought permit selected by nations. But world must has unique year-month system for counting dates and showing seasos. So that I don't agree leap week ,beacause it must 364 day year. As for what canlendar proposal has chance of acceptance,this is a problem far beyond calendar people. You wrote : A 10-day week could bring even more calendricalconvienience. I reply: I agree .A 5-day week has conviennien as 10-day week too. Yiping Zeng 14/Aug/2009
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:41:21 +0000 From: nkklrp@...Subject: Re: Yiping's displaced Gregorian New Year's Day To: CALNDR-L@...
Dear Yiping and Calendar People,
You wrote:
Today I only reply you about one problem. I wrote: From moving new year's day foreward to Jan 14th,I deduce to that your winter's length is 90,not 117. it is right or wrong? You reply: It is wrong? I reply you again: Why?
I reply:
If you'd read the message that you're replying to, you'd know why. I don't know how to try to talk to someone who keeps repeating the same statements, without even looking at the answers that have been given.
You continued:
According your step I show you as follow: new year's day as Jan 1st new year's day as Jan 14th North's start Jun 1st North's start Jun 14th north solstice Jun 21st north solstice Jun 21st distance 21-1=20 distance 21-14=7 timelag 38 timelag 38 half of North 20+38=58 half of North 7+38=45 length of season 58*2=116 length of season 45*2=90 Where wrong? I reply:
Hello? In the posting to which you are were replying, I stated that, I initally didn't understand your point. But I said that I now understand it, and was replying to it. You're apparently forgetting that I saids that.
What's "wrong" with what you said above? What's "wrong" was that your point wasn't clearly made. That's why neither I, nor other list-members, understood it. However, in the posting that you're "replying" to, I stated that I previously didn't understand your point, but that I now understand it, and that I'd reply to it in the same posting that I was at that time writing. And I did reply to it. Where have you been?
I clearly said in the posting that you're "replying" to:
In the alternative universe where the Gregorian near starts 13 days later, with respect to our own Gregorian year, where the beginnings of months occur 13 days away from where they occur for us, the public perception and definition of what summer means might be different. Since Subjective Seasonal is based on the public perception of when summer starts, then, necessarily, in your alternative universe, Subjective Seasonal will be different from how it is in our own universe.
I'm repeating what I said in my previous posting. I shouldn't have to do that. Nor will I continue doing it.
I said "in the posting that you were replying to". I speak loosely when I say that you're "replying" to that posting. Of course you aren't replying to it at all. You're instead merely repeating the same statements, in apparent ignorance of the answer that was given in the posting that you're "replying" to.
I don't know what's wrong with you, Yiping. What can I say? Read the posting that was on your screen when you clicked on "reply". That's all I can suggest.
Mike Ossipoff
Get free photo software from Windows Live Click here.
您可以借助 Windows Live 整理、编辑和 共享您的照片。
|
