Joining list. Calendar reforms.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Mark--
 
> The story about the emperors stealing days from February to augment
> their eponymous months originated with Sacrobosco in the 13th century.
> It has been debunked, but it is still widely believed. Even by
> professors emeriti, apparently. :)
 
Ok, I had no idea that there were two widely-circulated accounts going around. I assumed that because the robbed-February verson was so widespread that it was true. So yes, if Prof. Irwin (I miss-spelled his name before) could be mistaken on that, then he conceivably could be mistaken about the Jan 1, 46 B.C., new moon.
 
I just want to add that I never read anyone say that Julius named July after himself. I read that that was done later, after his death.
 
So Quintillius wasn't Julius's month when he gave it 31 days. I don't know  whether or not Julius changed the lengths of February and Quintillius.
 
As I understood it,  your suggested that, while following other traditional considerations, Julius may have wante to also start his year fairly close to a new moon. Good enough.
 
Mike Ossipoff

 
 

---

Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.

[Mark J. Reed]

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> The story about the emperors stealing days from February to augment
> their eponymous months originated with Sacrobosco in the 13th century.
>  It has been debunked, but it is still widely believed.  Even by
> professors emeriti, apparently. :)

Here's an article about the Julian reform from Popular Astronomy
magazine, full text online:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1919PA.....27..579P/0000583.000.html

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

 

Dear Victor--

 

You wrote:

I would go further than that. Here in central Texas, winter is almost like a conglomeration of fall, winter, and spring. Live oaks, for example, shed their leaves in the end of what is normally considered winter and the start of spring. Redbuds begin blooming in early February. Loquats bloom in December. Summer typically seems to last from mid-May to mid-October, nearly half the year.

 

I reply:

 

Ok, I didn't realize how radically different it can be, even in the "temperate zone". Apparently, then, local seasons can completely

defy representation by any seasonal calendar. But I still claim that it's better that the calendar at least make the effort, in order to at least try to refer to the  natural year. But yes, the "Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn" names for quarters seem to lose their meaning for some places, even in the U.S. Thanks for pointing it out.

I'd said:

 

It isn't a matter of precisely modeling the seasons. It's a matter of explicitly referring to them, and making the effort.

 

You replied:

 

So how is it any different than what we do now? Typically, I hear winter described as the three months starting on the winter solstice. Spring is the three months starting on the vernal equinox, etc. That makes for a good match with your suggested scheme I think.

 

I reply:

 

No, because we don't start the year on the winter solstice. Even though, as you showed, the calendar's effort to represent seasons can be way off, what else should the calendar refer to, if not the natural year?

 

My definition of a seasonal calendar is very broad: Year-divisions divisible into equal or nearly-equal quarters (differing only by a day or two); Start the year on a solstice or equinox (especially the southern solstice), or else otherwise try to match them to the thermal seasons.

 

I'd said:

 

 
I have no objection to just starting the year on the winter solstice, or even the summer solstice or an equinox, because, as I said, that amounts to assuming a seasonal-lag of 1.5 months. If the lag is different where you live, then you can easily correct for the difference between your local seasonal-lag and that assumed by the calendar (whether that's 1.5 months, 1.25 months, or something else).
 

You replied:

OK. But I thought you were proposing a formal calendar change designed to align with the seasons.

 

I reply:

 

Only to the very approximate extent that that is possible.

 

You continued:

 

My main point is that you can't align with the seasons because they're too variable.

 

I reply:

 

Agreed, especially from what you told me today. But, as I always say, what should a calendar be based on, if not the natural year, even if it can often only represent it very poorly.

 

You continued:

 

They're already about as aligned as they can be, I think.

 

I reply:

 

Well, we could start the year on the southern solstice, and make sure that the quarters are as equal as possible.

You continued:

 
If it's not possible to peg the seasons with any specificity, why is it helpful to construct a calendar with such specificity? 

 

I reply:

 

Just because anything other than the natural year is arbitrary as a basis for a calendar. Just because it's best if we at least make the brave effort even if a good match isn't possible.

 

 

I'd said:

So, ask not how perfectly a seasonal calendar can model the seasons. Ask instead whether the  Roman calendar has any relevence to them at all.
 
You replied:

 

It does. Dividing the year in what I'll term the Gregorian calendar by quarters, starting with January, serves to mark the seasons just as well as what you suggest, in my opinion.

 

I reply:

 

Yes, to tell the truth, that had occurred to me also. I can't deny it. But it differs more from the average seasonal timelag.

And any arbitrariness is aesthetically unappealling, which is why I've suggested at least trying to base the calendar on the natural year. In any case, must we keep the Roman month-names?

 

 

Mike Ossipoff

 

 

 

---

Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out.

[RDoug]

Irv Bromberg wrote: Robert's procedure is, if I understand correctly...

Sounds right.

>Although the 19-year cycle is not explicitly used, it is implicit...

Yes indeed.  We can claim that the algorithm requires no explicit attention to the position in the 19-year cycle, and that "we never divide by 19 in the Algorithm".  This is because the necessary division by 19 is implicit in the Constant used for the Tekufah-year... 365.2468222 days, which is (by definition) exactly 1/19 the length of a Metonic Cycle of 235 Hebrew Lunations.

-- Robert H. Douglass

[Claus Tøndering]

Thank you, Robert. That was very informative.

Cheers,
Claus

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of RDoug
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 9:57 PM
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Lunar Themelion

Claus Tøndering wrote:
In its calendar calculations, the Orthodox Church uses something called the
"Lunar Themelion". For example, according to
http://www.goarch.org/chapel/kanonion/2009_kanonion-en.pdf, the Lunar
Themelion for 2009 is 15.

What is the Lunar Themelion? (The Greek word "themelion" means "basis" or
"foundation". ) It obviously has some relationship to the Epact, but why did
it change in 2006?

_______________________________________________________________

The determination of Easter (Pascha) in the Orthodox Church derives directly
from the Coptic Calendar.  It is based on a 19-year Metonic Cycle.  Year One
of the Metonic Cycle was Year One of the Coptic Calendar, which is the
(northern) Spring of Year 285 AD.  In this year the Epact (or "offset" of
lunar to solar calendars) was Zero.  In each successive year of the Cycle
the Epact increases by 11 (meaning that the lunar dates come 11 days earlier
each year relative to the solar dates), but any time the number is greater
than 30, reduce it by 30. (This is equivalent to adding a 30-day intercalary
month to keep the lunar dates in phase with the northern Spring Equinox.)

For the Years 2000 through 2009 AD, this gives a (Julian) Epact as follows:
2000  25
2001   6
2002  17
2003  28
2004   9
2005  20
2006   1
2007  12
2008  23
2009   4

Note that these are not the same as the Gregorian Epacts which you cited in
your table.

The Julian Epact gives the date of the Paschal Full Moon (Luna XIV) on the
Coptic Calendar, as follows:  Lunar Date is 40 minus the Epact;  if greater
than 30, then subtract 30.  This gives the day of the Month for the Pascal
Full Moon, in the APPROPRIATE Month of the Coptic Calendar, being Month 8
(Pharmuthi) unless the date is equal to or greater than 25, in which case it
refers to Month 7 (Phamenoth).  This gives the proper limits for Easter on
the Julian Calendar, with the earliest Luna XIV being 25 Phamenoth which is
always March 21 Julian.

The Tables as commonly published obscure somewhat this direct derivation.
They use a number called the "Lunar Foundation" (in Greek, Themelion tis
selenis.  In Slavonic, Osnovanie), which is always 11 more than the Julian
Epact.  This gives the lunar dates as 51 minus the Themelion; if greater
than 30, then subtract 30.  Results will be same as above.

The Slavonic Tables (found online at
http://www.liturgy.ru/grafics/tipicon/page.php?p=1141&cd=&k= ) give this
number Osnovanie for every year in the 532-year combined cycle (19-year
Metonic Cycle times 28-year Solar Cycle).  They also list the Coptic Lunar
Date as discussed above, unfortunately under the misleading title of
"Epakta".  (But everybody knows that an Epact should Increase by 11 days
from year to year, whereas these number Decrease by 11 days from year to
year.)

The Greek Tables (which I have studied in a Book of the Canons, published by
the Church of Greece in Athens, 1859, are consistent with the above
understanding.

The references you give show an unfortunate confusion.  For the years 2000
through 2005, they listed the Gregorian Epact, falsely labelling it as the
Themelion.  For the years 2006 through 2009, they got it right, properly
listing the Julian Themelion as discussed above.  This accounts for the
discontinuity you observed.

-- Robert H. Douglass

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Joining-list.-Calendar-reforms.-tp23642226p23726005.html
Sent from the Calndr-L mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Karl Palmen]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Dear Mike and Calendar People

 

Brij has suggested several leap week calendars, where a week is intercalated to a year of exactly 52 weeks = 364 days.  See http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/lweek1.htm .

 

All of Brij’s proposed leap week rules make all years whose number is divisible by six have a leap week and some other years, which Brij calls Kepler’s leap week years have a leap week.   

 

Other leap week rules have been suggested. See http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/lweek1.htm#rules .

 

There is a trade-off between simplicity and minimising the jitter of the year with respect to the seasons (or mean year). Extreme examples (for the 400-year cycle of 71 leap weeks) are  

(1)    5:40:400 in which a year has a leap week if its number is divisible by five, but not divisible by 40, unless also divisible by 400 (similar to Gregorian 4:100:400), which varies about two and half weeks against the mean year and

(2)    one whose leap weeks occur on years five or six years apart in intervals:

6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5

6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5

6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5

6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,5

6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5

6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5

6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,5

which gives the minimum jitter of one week against the mean year. Irv has suggested a similar rule for a 293-year cycle of 523 leap weeks.

 

Karl

 

10(09(03 till noon

 

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
Sent: 27 May 2009 00:20
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Sorry Brij--I confused you with someone else

 

 
It was Mikail Petin, not Brij, who suggested eliminating the 7-day week, and so, my apologies, Brij.
 

---

Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.

---

Scanned by iCritical.

[Mark J. Reed]

As mentioned earlier, the ISO 8601 week-numbering system for the
Gregorian calendar effectively defines a leap-week calendar, in which
most years have 52 weeks but 71 out of 400 years have 53 weeks. Since
the rule is based on the weekday on which the corresponding Gregorian
January 1 falls, the pattern is not obvious when considered in
isolation. It is almost the ideal (irregular) 5,6,5,6,6 pattern that
Karl mentioned, but there is one seven-year gap (between years 296 and
303 modulo 400).


On 5/27/09, Palmen, KEV (Karl) <karl.palmen@...> wrote:

> Dear Mike and Calendar People
>
>
>
> Brij has suggested several leap week calendars, where a week is
> intercalated to a year of exactly 52 weeks = 364 days.  See
> http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/lweek1.htm .
>
>
>
> All of Brij's proposed leap week rules make all years whose number is
> divisible by six have a leap week and some other years, which Brij calls
> Kepler's leap week years have a leap week.
>
>
>
> Other leap week rules have been suggested. See
> http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/lweek1.htm#rules .
>
>
>
> There is a trade-off between simplicity and minimising the jitter of the
> year with respect to the seasons (or mean year). Extreme examples (for
> the 400-year cycle of 71 leap weeks) are
>
> (1)    5:40:400 in which a year has a leap week if its number is
> divisible by five, but not divisible by 40, unless also divisible by 400
> (similar to Gregorian 4:100:400), which varies about two and half weeks
> against the mean year and
>
> (2)    one whose leap weeks occur on years five or six years apart in
> intervals:
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,5
>
> which gives the minimum jitter of one week against the mean year. Irv
> has suggested a similar rule for a 293-year cycle of 523 leap weeks.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> 10(09(03 till noon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
> Sent: 27 May 2009 00:20
> To: CALNDR-L@...
> Subject: Sorry Brij--I confused you with someone else
>
>
>
>
> It was Mikail Petin, not Brij, who suggested eliminating the 7-day week,
> and so, my apologies, Brij.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail(r). See how.
> <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_T
> utorial_QuickAdd1_052009>
>
>
> --
>
> Scanned by iCritical.
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Mark J. Reed]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Palmen, KEV (Karl)
<karl.palmen@...> wrote:
> Irv has suggested a similar rule for a 293-year cycle of 523 leap weeks.

Huh?  523 leap weeks in 293 years  seems a bit excessive...

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Karl Palmen]

Dear Mark and Calendar People

Oops! I mistyped a 3 after the 52. Of course, I meant 52 leap weeks (= 364 days so 293 years equal 294*364 days).

Karl

10(09(04

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
Sent: 27 May 2009 13:14
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Leap Week Calendars RE: Sorry Brij--I confused you with someone else

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Palmen, KEV (Karl)
<karl.palmen@...> wrote:
> Irv has suggested a similar rule for a 293-year cycle of 523 leap weeks.

Huh?  523 leap weeks in 293 years  seems a bit excessive...

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Brillig]

I think that was just fat fingered. It should be 52 leap weeks.

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Palmen, KEV (Karl)

<karl.palmen@...> wrote:

> Irv has suggested a similar rule for a 293-year cycle of 523 leap weeks.

Huh?  523 leap weeks in 293 years  seems a bit excessive...

--

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Karl Palmen]

Dear Mike and Calendar People

I recall placing the ideal (irregular) patter such that it differed from the ISO leap week years for just 14 of the 71 leap week years and by one year in all 14 of these cases.

There are two ways of placing the ideal (irregular) pattern so that the leap years have the same symmetry as they do in the Gregorian calendar (about years divisible by 200). One of these two enables the mean new year to exactly equal the mean new year of the Gregorian calendar for Sunday starting weeks. The leap weeks are in years:

1800 1806 1811  1817 1823 1828  1834 1839 1845
1851 1856 1862  1868 1873 1879  1885 1890 1896
1901 1908 1913  1918 1924 1930  1935 1941 1947
1952 1958 1963  1969 1975 1980  1986 1992 1997
2003 2008 2014  2020 2025 2031  2037 2042 2048
2053 2059 2065  2070 2076 2082  2087 2092 2099
2104 2110 2115  2121 2127 2132  2138 2144 2149
2155 2161 2166  2172 2177 2183  2189 2194 2200
and so on every 400 years.

It is not possible to have the mean new year exactly equal to that of the Gregorian calendar for weeks beginning Monday (as for ISO weeks) or any other day of the week besides Sunday, but it is possible to get the mean new year within 3/400 day (10.8 minutes) of the mean new year of the Gregorian calendar. Note that moving one leap week one year shifts the mean new year by 7/400 day (25.2 minutes).

Karl

10(09(04

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
Sent: 27 May 2009 13:13
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Leap Week Calendars RE: Sorry Brij--I confused you with someone else

As mentioned earlier, the ISO 8601 week-numbering system for the
Gregorian calendar effectively defines a leap-week calendar, in which
most years have 52 weeks but 71 out of 400 years have 53 weeks. Since
the rule is based on the weekday on which the corresponding Gregorian
January 1 falls, the pattern is not obvious when considered in
isolation. It is almost the ideal (irregular) 5,6,5,6,6 pattern that
Karl mentioned, but there is one seven-year gap (between years 296 and
303 modulo 400).


On 5/27/09, Palmen, KEV (Karl) <karl.palmen@...> wrote:

> Dear Mike and Calendar People
>
>
>
> Brij has suggested several leap week calendars, where a week is
> intercalated to a year of exactly 52 weeks = 364 days.  See
> http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/lweek1.htm .
>
>
>
> All of Brij's proposed leap week rules make all years whose number is
> divisible by six have a leap week and some other years, which Brij calls
> Kepler's leap week years have a leap week.
>
>
>
> Other leap week rules have been suggested. See
> http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/lweek1.htm#rules .
>
>
>
> There is a trade-off between simplicity and minimising the jitter of the
> year with respect to the seasons (or mean year). Extreme examples (for
> the 400-year cycle of 71 leap weeks) are
>
> (1)    5:40:400 in which a year has a leap week if its number is
> divisible by five, but not divisible by 40, unless also divisible by 400
> (similar to Gregorian 4:100:400), which varies about two and half weeks
> against the mean year and
>
> (2)    one whose leap weeks occur on years five or six years apart in
> intervals:
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,6,5 6,5
>
> 6,6,5, 6,6,5, 6,5
>
> which gives the minimum jitter of one week against the mean year. Irv
> has suggested a similar rule for a 293-year cycle of 523 leap weeks.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> 10(09(03 till noon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
> [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
> Sent: 27 May 2009 00:20
> To: CALNDR-L@...
> Subject: Sorry Brij--I confused you with someone else
>
>
>
>
> It was Mikail Petin, not Brij, who suggested eliminating the 7-day week,
> and so, my apologies, Brij.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail(r). See how.
> <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_T
> utorial_QuickAdd1_052009>
>
>
> --
>
> Scanned by iCritical.
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009 May 27, at 11:07 , Palmen, KEV (Karl) wrote:

It is not possible to have the mean new year exactly equal to that of the Gregorian calendar for weeks beginning Monday (as for ISO weeks) or any other day of the week besides Sunday, but it is possible to get the mean new year within 3/400 day (10.8 minutes) of the mean new year of the Gregorian calendar. Note that moving one leap week one year shifts the mean new year by 7/400 day (25.2 minutes).

Irv adds:

7/400 day = 25+1/5 minutes = 25 minutes and 12 seconds

3/400 day = 10+4/5 minutes = 10 minutes and 48 seconds

1/400 day = 3+3/5 minutes = 3 minutes and 36 seconds

I generally prefer the above formats instead of decimal numbers, which are usually less exact, but the decimal numbers that Karl gave above are of course all exact values.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/>

[Brillig]

Dear Irv,

Expressing fractional days in hours, minutes, seconds is exact only if the denominator is not relatively prime with 86400.

Victor

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Irv Bromberg <irv.bromberg@...> wrote:

On 2009 May 27, at 11:07 , Palmen, KEV (Karl) wrote:

It is not possible to have the mean new year exactly equal to that of the Gregorian calendar for weeks beginning Monday (as for ISO weeks) or any other day of the week besides Sunday, but it is possible to get the mean new year within 3/400 day (10.8 minutes) of the mean new year of the Gregorian calendar. Note that moving one leap week one year shifts the mean new year by 7/400 day (25.2 minutes).

Irv adds:

7/400 day = 25+1/5 minutes = 25 minutes and 12 seconds

3/400 day = 10+4/5 minutes = 10 minutes and 48 seconds

1/400 day = 3+3/5 minutes = 3 minutes and 36 seconds

I generally prefer the above formats instead of decimal numbers, which are usually less exact, but the decimal numbers that Karl gave above are of course all exact values.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/>

[Mark J. Reed]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Brij Bhushan Vij
<metricvij@...> wrote:
> During earlier discussions I had shown that a 400-year Gregorian cycle could
> be formed using *Div. six(6) Plan* and get the same Mean Year
> =7*(52+1/6+13/1200) =365.2425 days.

?  You can't get 13/1200 of a week out of a 400-year cycle of years
comprised only of whole weeks.
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[Mark J. Reed]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Brij Bhushan Vij <metricvij@...> wrote:
>
> Mark Reed, sir:
> >? You can't get 13/1200 of a week out of a 400-year cycle of years comprised >only of whole weeks.
> 400-yrs is NOT divisible by six, as such I choose 3*400 =1200-years.
>
> (3*400) =1200-years =438290.6276 days; 14841.9323 lunation(62613 Weeks, is in excess of 8h 56m 15s (in 1200-yrs). (1200*52+200+13) weeks to give Mean Year=438291/1200 =7*[52+1/6+13/1200] =365.2425 days. Mean Lunation =438291/14842 =29.530454116696 days.
>
> This is acceptable, I think i.e. 3 hours in 400-years.

Sure, but that's not what you wrote:

BBJ> During earlier discussions I had shown that a 400-year Gregorian
cycle could be formed using *Div. six(6) Plan* and get the same
BBJ> Mean Year =7*(52+1/6+13/1200) =365.2425 days.

You can form a 1200-year cycle that has the same mean year as the
Gregorian calendar, but that's not the same as forming a "400-year
Gregorian cycle".

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Dear Victor,
 
(I'm replying in plain-text, because it works better)
 
First of all, I was a bit unfair to myself yesterday. My only goal with a seasonal calendar is a simple, rough but explicit reference of the calendar to the seasons. Suire, the seasonal timelag differs in different places. If you know your local timelag, then you can adjust appropriately, to get an idea of the calendar's actual relation to seasons where you are.
 
The goal is for the middle of calendar winter to lag behind the winter solstice by the estimated average right amount. A timelag that's constant throughout the year is a simplifying assumption. And the division of the year into four equal seasons is of course just a conventional, neat, simplifying assumption, resulting in a calendar that only roughly refers to the seasons--but I claim that "roughly" is better than "not at all". So my goal is a modest one.
 
So, let me re-write my reply to a recent message you posted. Also, I'd previously missed replying to a statement there. And, in another instance, I mis-wrote everyone's intuitive division of our Roman months into seasonss. I'll get to those things below.
 
You wrote:

So how is it any different than what we do now? Typically, I hear winter described as the three months starting on the winter solstice. Spring is the three months starting on the vernal equinox, etc. That makes for a good match with your suggested scheme I think.
 
I reply:
 
Yes, that's one good-enough approximation. As I was saying, it assumes a timelag of 1.5 months. One merely has to adjust for his/her local timelag, to get a better relation between calendar and seasons, though it's still only a rough framework.
 
But the reason why what you said doesn't make our present calendar a seasonal calendar is that we don't start a quarter (containing a whole number of months) on that winter solstice. My requirements for a seasonal calendar are broad and modest, but out Roman calendar doesn't meet them:
 
1. Year-subdivisions must be groupable into four quarters that are equal or nearly equal (within a day or two), or into periods which are explicitly offered as an attempt to follow our intuitive, subjective judgement of when the seasons are. In the latter instance, I'll call the calendar a "subjective calendar".
 
2. The year must start with one of those quarters at a solstice or equinox, or else the middle of one of the quarters or subjective periods must follow a solstice or equinox  by a duration equal to an estimate of the average timelag.
 
[end of seasonal calendar requirements]
 
If the year starts on a solstice or equinox, I'll call that "astronomical starting", or "astr starting". If the middle of a quarter or subjective period follows a solstice or equinox by a duration equal to an estimate of the average timelag, I'll call that "Thermal centering".
 
[below is what I seem to have missed replying to]
 

You wrote:

OK. But I thought you were proposing a formal calendar change designed to align with the seasons.
 
I reply:
 
Yes, but only as a rough reference to the seasons, with the understanding that the timelag differs from place-to-to-place, and with the understanding that a division into four equal seasons is only a neat simpllifying assumption.
 
My main point is that you can't align with the seasons because they're too variable. They're already about as aligned as they can be, I think.
 
I reply:
 
With that I disagree. I'll answer below when the subject comes up again, at the very end of this posting.

 
You continued:

 
Invariable, someone will choose a season-specific theme, like fall color. It never really works out, because it's highly location specific. Fall color, for example, here in central Texas, generally comes one or two months later than it does in New England.
 

I previously answereed:
 
So then an explicitly seasonal calendar would need to be corrected for your area, as it would for most places. The point is that at least the calendar would be making the effort. If we're going to name times of year in some way, doesn't it make the most sense to explicitly refer to the seasons, even if it isn't possible to do so with great accuracy?
 
I'd like to add this: My goal is modest, every seasonal manifestation is not going to match, aside from the fact that the timlag varies and the quarter-year seasons are purely conventional. But it's enough that the calendar is based on an estimated average timelag, for a rough framework reference to the seasons, correctable locally to better relate the calendar to the seasons.
 
 
You wrote:

If it's not possible to peg the seasons with any specificity, why is it helpful to construct a calendar with such specificity?
 
I reply:
 
Because a rough correspondence, a rough reference, is better than none at all. Because: What should a calendar be based on, and what should its year-divisions be named for, if not the natural year? Shall we have the arbitrary -natural-year-irrlevant Roman calendar, or at least choose something actually based on the natural year, even though that can't be done precisely, due to local variations?  



Earlier you asked:
 

My main point is that you can't align with the seasons because they're too variable. They're already about as aligned as they can be, I think.
 
Then you add here (My previous reply was based on an error, so I'll start over):

Dividing the year in what I'll term the Gregorian calendar by quarters, starting with January, serves to mark the seasons just as well as what you suggest, in my opinion.
 
I reply:
 
No way. It's widely agreed that June is summer. It's widely agreed that December is winter.
 
Don't take my word for it. I quote from Leigh Hunt, who wrote about the seasons, and maybe a few others:
 
Leigh Hunt wrote that June is the season of "complete summer".
 
An un-named author wrote that "June is the month of greatest summr beauty".
 
About December, Leigh Hunt wrote, "It is now complete winter".
 
The Poetical Calendar says, "Last of the months, and the severest of them all" (or maybe it seems so because it's the first really wintry month).
 
Many authors characterize it with frost, snow and ice.
 
Early Saxons called December "Winter-Monath", or "Midwinter".
 
So: January, February & March will not do as winter. July, August & September will not do as summer.
 
And you yourself said that January is usually the coldest month. So it would make more sense for it to be the middle month of winter.
 
But, if we start the year, and the 1st quarter, on December 1st, _then_, yes, the quarters very well match our intuitive subjective impression of when the seasons are. But we don't start the year on December, and so our Roman calendar _doesn't_ qualify as a seasonal calendar. It would if we started the year on December.
 
As natural and right as it seems, to start summer with June 1, and to start winter with December 1st, based on our subjective, intuitive impressions, that results in a timelag of only 24 days. I've resided in Santa Cruz, California for most of my life, and those season-beginning-dates seem very reasonable there. But, in Santa Cruz, the middle of winter, as measured by the temperature records, in the manner that I described, is 38 days after the winter solstice. Why the contradiction then? Well, of course I've always admited that the division of the year into four equal seasons is just a neat convention. So:
 
Assuming a timelag of 1.25 months, start winter on Dec. 1, and start summer on June 1. Adjust the ends of those seasons to move the timelag from 24 days to 38 days. Do that by moving the ends of those seasons to dates 28 days later.
 
Now winter and summer have 118 days each, and start, respectively, on Dec. 1 and June 1. Give spring 64 days, and autumn 65 days, for a total of 365.
 
For a fixed calendar? Give summer and winter 17 weeks. Give spring and autumn 9 weeks, for a total of 52 weeks.
 
Want months? With a fixed calendar, 17 and 9 can be divided into the same 4 and 5 week months of the 454 system:
 
Winter and summer: 4,4,4,5
 
Spring and autumn: 4,5
 
If the calendar is nonfixed, then the seasons can be divided into months any way you want, if you want months.
 
As I said, I call that a subjective calendar. A subjective seasonal calendar.
 
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009

[Brillig]

Mike,

It seems to me that your long post boils down to this:

The Gregorian calendar tracks the seasons, but the start date of the year is wrong. Perhaps you'd like to revert back to the origins of the calendar, when it began in spring. Then you'd have spring being March, April, May,
summer being June, July, and August,
fall being September, October, and November,
winter being December, January, February.

Note that the leap day comes at the end of the year. In fact, may computer algorithms compute dates this way because of the position of the leap day.

Also, the time between equinoxes and solstices is not even as implied, varying in length by a couple of days. This is because the orbit of the earth is elliptical. Earth is farthest away at northern summer, making summer in the northern hemisphere longer than in the southern hemisphere. Additionally, the year length is different depending on which season you wish to use as your yard stick.

Anyway, I've stated my opinion. The seasons align perfectly well with the Gregorian calendar since the Gregorian calendar mean year tracks the spring equinox quite well and seasonal variability is much greater than calendar jitter.

Victor

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:12 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp@...> wrote:

Dear Victor,

(I'm replying in plain-text, because it works better)

First of all, I was a bit unfair to myself yesterday. My only goal with a seasonal calendar is a simple, rough but explicit reference of the calendar to the seasons. Suire, the seasonal timelag differs in different places. If you know your local timelag, then you can adjust appropriately, to get an idea of the calendar's actual relation to seasons where you are.

The goal is for the middle of calendar winter to lag behind the winter solstice by the estimated average right amount. A timelag that's constant throughout the year is a simplifying assumption. And the division of the year into four equal seasons is of course just a conventional, neat, simplifying assumption, resulting in a calendar that only roughly refers to the seasons--but I claim that "roughly" is better than "not at all". So my goal is a modest one.

So, let me re-write my reply to a recent message you posted. Also, I'd previously missed replying to a statement there. And, in another instance, I mis-wrote everyone's intuitive division of our Roman months into seasonss. I'll get to those things below.

You wrote:

So how is it any different than what we do now? Typically, I hear winter described as the three months starting on the winter solstice. Spring is the three months starting on the vernal equinox, etc. That makes for a good match with your suggested scheme I think.

I reply:

Yes, that's one good-enough approximation. As I was saying, it assumes a timelag of 1.5 months. One merely has to adjust for his/her local timelag, to get a better relation between calendar and seasons, though it's still only a rough framework.

But the reason why what you said doesn't make our present calendar a seasonal calendar is that we don't start a quarter (containing a whole number of months) on that winter solstice. My requirements for a seasonal calendar are broad and modest, but out Roman calendar doesn't meet them:

1. Year-subdivisions must be groupable into four quarters that are equal or nearly equal (within a day or two), or into periods which are explicitly offered as an attempt to follow our intuitive, subjective judgement of when the seasons are. In the latter instance, I'll call the calendar a "subjective calendar".

2. The year must start with one of those quarters at a solstice or equinox, or else the middle of one of the quarters or subjective periods must follow a solstice or equinox  by a duration equal to an estimate of the average timelag.

[end of seasonal calendar requirements]

If the year starts on a solstice or equinox, I'll call that "astronomical starting", or "astr starting". If the middle of a quarter or subjective period follows a solstice or equinox by a duration equal to an estimate of the average timelag, I'll call that "Thermal centering".

[below is what I seem to have missed replying to]


You wrote:

OK. But I thought you were proposing a formal calendar change designed to align with the seasons.

I reply:

Yes, but only as a rough reference to the seasons, with the understanding that the timelag differs from place-to-to-place, and with the understanding that a division into four equal seasons is only a neat simpllifying assumption.

My main point is that you can't align with the seasons because they're too variable. They're already about as aligned as they can be, I think.

I reply:

With that I disagree. I'll answer below when the subject comes up again, at the very end of this posting.


You continued:


Invariable, someone will choose a season-specific theme, like fall color. It never really works out, because it's highly location specific. Fall color, for example, here in central Texas, generally comes one or two months later than it does in New England.


I previously answereed:

So then an explicitly seasonal calendar would need to be corrected for your area, as it would for most places. The point is that at least the calendar would be making the effort. If we're going to name times of year in some way, doesn't it make the most sense to explicitly refer to the seasons, even if it isn't possible to do so with great accuracy?

I'd like to add this: My goal is modest, every seasonal manifestation is not going to match, aside from the fact that the timlag varies and the quarter-year seasons are purely conventional. But it's enough that the calendar is based on an estimated average timelag, for a rough framework reference to the seasons, correctable locally to better relate the calendar to the seasons.


You wrote:

If it's not possible to peg the seasons with any specificity, why is it helpful to construct a calendar with such specificity?

I reply:

Because a rough correspondence, a rough reference, is better than none at all. Because: What should a calendar be based on, and what should its year-divisions be named for, if not the natural year? Shall we have the arbitrary -natural-year-irrlevant Roman calendar, or at least choose something actually based on the natural year, even though that can't be done precisely, due to local variations?



Earlier you asked:


My main point is that you can't align with the seasons because they're too variable. They're already about as aligned as they can be, I think.

Then you add here (My previous reply was based on an error, so I'll start over):

Dividing the year in what I'll term the Gregorian calendar by quarters, starting with January, serves to mark the seasons just as well as what you suggest, in my opinion.

I reply:

No way. It's widely agreed that June is summer. It's widely agreed that December is winter.

Don't take my word for it. I quote from Leigh Hunt, who wrote about the seasons, and maybe a few others:

Leigh Hunt wrote that June is the season of "complete summer".

An un-named author wrote that "June is the month of greatest summr beauty".

About December, Leigh Hunt wrote, "It is now complete winter".

The Poetical Calendar says, "Last of the months, and the severest of them all" (or maybe it seems so because it's the first really wintry month).

Many authors characterize it with frost, snow and ice.

Early Saxons called December "Winter-Monath", or "Midwinter".

So: January, February & March will not do as winter. July, August & September will not do as summer.

And you yourself said that January is usually the coldest month. So it would make more sense for it to be the middle month of winter.

But, if we start the year, and the 1st quarter, on December 1st, _then_, yes, the quarters very well match our intuitive subjective impression of when the seasons are. But we don't start the year on December, and so our Roman calendar _doesn't_ qualify as a seasonal calendar. It would if we started the year on December.

As natural and right as it seems, to start summer with June 1, and to start winter with December 1st, based on our subjective, intuitive impressions, that results in a timelag of only 24 days. I've resided in Santa Cruz, California for most of my life, and those season-beginning-dates seem very reasonable there. But, in Santa Cruz, the middle of winter, as measured by the temperature records, in the manner that I described, is 38 days after the winter solstice. Why the contradiction then? Well, of course I've always admited that the division of the year into four equal seasons is just a neat convention. So:

Assuming a timelag of 1.25 months, start winter on Dec. 1, and start summer on June 1. Adjust the ends of those seasons to move the timelag from 24 days to 38 days. Do that by moving the ends of those seasons to dates 28 days later.

Now winter and summer have 118 days each, and start, respectively, on Dec. 1 and June 1. Give spring 64 days, and autumn 65 days, for a total of 365.

For a fixed calendar? Give summer and winter 17 weeks. Give spring and autumn 9 weeks, for a total of 52 weeks.

Want months? With a fixed calendar, 17 and 9 can be divided into the same 4 and 5 week months of the 454 system:

Winter and summer: 4,4,4,5

Spring and autumn: 4,5

If the calendar is nonfixed, then the seasons can be divided into months any way you want, if you want months.

As I said, I call that a subjective calendar. A subjective seasonal calendar.


Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Victor--
 
You wrote:
 
> It seems to me that your long post boils down to this:
 
Well a short part of my long post says that. Much of that long post is about my suggested subjective calendar that gives intuitively right seasons, while having a 1.25 month timelag.
 
You continued:
>
> The Gregorian calendar tracks the seasons, but the start date of the year is wrong. Perhaps you'd like to revert back to the origins of the calendar, when it began in spring. Then you'd have spring being March, April, May,
>
> summer being June, July, and August,
> fall being September, October, and November,
> winter being December, January, February.
 
I reply:
 
That would be great, and would be quite acceptable, even if not my 1st choice. It would be a seasonal calendar. Even if the time-lag is maybe 2 weeks off from the average, that's something that needs adjusting for anyway, in many locales.
 
One other thing. extending summer 28 days into September (as in my subjective calendar suggestion) accords well with our intuitive impression that August is not where summer ends, and that summer trails into September. It also agrees reasonably well with the conventional end of summer on Sept. 21. Likewise when we extend winter 28 days into March. So that, along with the unnecessarily "off" timelag, is another reason why my suggsested subjective seasonal calendar is better than just starting the year on the March equinox and letting each 3 months be a season. But, as I said, that would be quite acceptable anyway, and a valid seasonal calendar.
 
 
You continued:

>
> Note that the leap day comes at the end of the year. In fact, may computer algorithms compute dates this way because of the position of the leap day.

Good, then it's already in use in some way, and it wouldn't be such a big jump to make it officially civil.
 
>
>
> Also, the time between equinoxes and solstices is not even as implied, varying in length by a couple of days. This is because the orbit of the earth is elliptical. Earth is farthest away at northern summer, making summer in the northern hemisphere longer than in the southern hemisphere.
 
OF course. Seasonal exactitude isn't possible anyway.
 
You continued:
 
Additionally, the year length is different depending on which season you wish to use as your yard stick.
 
I prefer having the middle of winter lag behind the winter solstice (in the northern hemisphere) by an amount equal to an estimate of the average timelag.
 

>
>
> Anyway, I've stated my opinion. The seasons align perfectly well with the Gregorian calendar
 
I reply:
 
I wouldn't say exact
 
 
 
 since the Gregorian calendar mean year tracks the spring equinox quite well and seasonal variability is much greater than calendar jitter.
 
 

>
>
> Victor
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:12 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF> wrote:
>
> Dear Victor,
>
>
>
> (I'm replying in plain-text, because it works better)
>
>
>
> First of all, I was a bit unfair to myself yesterday. My only goal with a seasonal calendar is a simple, rough but explicit reference of the calendar to the seasons. Suire, the seasonal timelag differs in different places. If you know your local timelag, then you can adjust appropriately, to get an idea of the calendar's actual relation to seasons where you are.
>
>
>
>
> The goal is for the middle of calendar winter to lag behind the winter solstice by the estimated average right amount. A timelag that's constant throughout the year is a simplifying assumption. And the division of the year into four equal seasons is of course just a conventional, neat, simplifying assumption, resulting in a calendar that only roughly refers to the seasons--but I claim that "roughly" is better than "not at all". So my goal is a modest one.
>
>
>
>
> So, let me re-write my reply to a recent message you posted. Also, I'd previously missed replying to a statement there. And, in another instance, I mis-wrote everyone's intuitive division of our Roman months into seasonss. I'll get to those things below.
>
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
>
>
> So how is it any different than what we do now? Typically, I hear winter described as the three months starting on the winter solstice. Spring is the three months starting on the vernal equinox, etc. That makes for a good match with your suggested scheme I think.
>
>
>
>
> I reply:
>
>
>
> Yes, that's one good-enough approximation. As I was saying, it assumes a timelag of 1.5 months. One merely has to adjust for his/her local timelag, to get a better relation between calendar and seasons, though it's still only a rough framework.
>
>
>
>
> But the reason why what you said doesn't make our present calendar a seasonal calendar is that we don't start a quarter (containing a whole number of months) on that winter solstice. My requirements for a seasonal calendar are broad and modest, but out Roman calendar doesn't meet them:
>
>
>
>
> 1. Year-subdivisions must be groupable into four quarters that are equal or nearly equal (within a day or two), or into periods which are explicitly offered as an attempt to follow our intuitive, subjective judgement of when the seasons are. In the latter instance, I'll call the calendar a "subjective calendar".
>
>
>
>
> 2. The year must start with one of those quarters at a solstice or equinox, or else the middle of one of the quarters or subjective periods must follow a solstice or equinox by a duration equal to an estimate of the average timelag.
>
>
>
>
> [end of seasonal calendar requirements]
>
>
>
> If the year starts on a solstice or equinox, I'll call that "astronomical starting", or "astr starting". If the middle of a quarter or subjective period follows a solstice or equinox by a duration equal to an estimate of the average timelag, I'll call that "Thermal centering".
>
>
>
>
> [below is what I seem to have missed replying to]
>
>
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
>
>
> OK. But I thought you were proposing a formal calendar change designed to align with the seasons.
>
>
>
> I reply:
>
>
>
> Yes, but only as a rough reference to the seasons, with the understanding that the timelag differs from place-to-to-place, and with the understanding that a division into four equal seasons is only a neat simpllifying assumption.
>
>
>
>
> My main point is that you can't align with the seasons because they're too variable. They're already about as aligned as they can be, I think.
>
>
>
> I reply:
>
>
>
> With that I disagree. I'll answer below when the subject comes up again, at the very end of this posting.
>
>
>
>
>
> You continued:
>
>
>
>
>
> Invariable, someone will choose a season-specific theme, like fall color. It never really works out, because it's highly location specific. Fall color, for example, here in central Texas, generally comes one or two months later than it does in New England.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I previously answereed:
>
>
>
> So then an explicitly seasonal calendar would need to be corrected for your area, as it would for most places. The point is that at least the calendar would be making the effort. If we're going to name times of year in some way, doesn't it make the most sense to explicitly refer to the seasons, even if it isn't possible to do so with great accuracy?
>
>
>
>
> I'd like to add this: My goal is modest, every seasonal manifestation is not going to match, aside from the fact that the timlag varies and the quarter-year seasons are purely conventional. But it's enough that the calendar is based on an estimated average timelag, for a rough framework reference to the seasons, correctable locally to better relate the calendar to the seasons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
>
>
> If it's not possible to peg the seasons with any specificity, why is it helpful to construct a calendar with such specificity?
>
>
>
> I reply:
>
>
>
> Because a rough correspondence, a rough reference, is better than none at all. Because: What should a calendar be based on, and what should its year-divisions be named for, if not the natural year? Shall we have the arbitrary -natural-year-irrlevant Roman calendar, or at least choose something actually based on the natural year, even though that can't be done precisely, due to local variations?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Earlier you asked:
>
>
>
>
>
> My main point is that you can't align with the seasons because they're too variable. They're already about as aligned as they can be, I think.
>
>
>
> Then you add here (My previous reply was based on an error, so I'll start over):
>
>
>
> Dividing the year in what I'll term the Gregorian calendar by quarters, starting with January, serves to mark the seasons just as well as what you suggest, in my opinion.
>
>
>
> I reply:
>
>
>
> No way. It's widely agreed that June is summer. It's widely agreed that December is winter.
>
>
>
> Don't take my word for it. I quote from Leigh Hunt, who wrote about the seasons, and maybe a few others:
>
>
>
> Leigh Hunt wrote that June is the season of "complete summer".
>
>
>
> An un-named author wrote that "June is the month of greatest summr beauty".
>
>
>
> About December, Leigh Hunt wrote, "It is now complete winter".
>
>
>
> The Poetical Calendar says, "Last of the months, and the severest of them all" (or maybe it seems so because it's the first really wintry month).
>
>
>
> Many authors characterize it with frost, snow and ice.
>
>
>
> Early Saxons called December "Winter-Monath", or "Midwinter".
>
>
>
> So: January, February & March will not do as winter. July, August & September will not do as summer.
>
>
>
> And you yourself said that January is usually the coldest month. So it would make more sense for it to be the middle month of winter.
>
>
>
> But, if we start the year, and the 1st quarter, on December 1st, _then_, yes, the quarters very well match our intuitive subjective impression of when the seasons are. But we don't start the year on December, and so our Roman calendar _doesn't_ qualify as a seasonal calendar. It would if we started the year on December.
>
>
>
>
> As natural and right as it seems, to start summer with June 1, and to start winter with December 1st, based on our subjective, intuitive impressions, that results in a timelag of only 24 days. I've resided in Santa Cruz, California for most of my life, and those season-beginning-dates seem very reasonable there. But, in Santa Cruz, the middle of winter, as measured by the temperature records, in the manner that I described, is 38 days after the winter solstice. Why the contradiction then? Well, of course I've always admited that the division of the year into four equal seasons is just a neat convention. So:
>
>
>
>
> Assuming a timelag of 1.25 months, start winter on Dec. 1, and start summer on June 1. Adjust the ends of those seasons to move the timelag from 24 days to 38 days. Do that by moving the ends of those seasons to dates 28 days later.
>
>
>
>
> Now winter and summer have 118 days each, and start, respectively, on Dec. 1 and June 1. Give spring 64 days, and autumn 65 days, for a total of 365.
>
>
>
> For a fixed calendar? Give summer and winter 17 weeks. Give spring and autumn 9 weeks, for a total of 52 weeks.
>
>
>
> Want months? With a fixed calendar, 17 and 9 can be divided into the same 4 and 5 week months of the 454 system:
>
>
>
> Winter and summer: 4,4,4,5
>
>
>
> Spring and autumn: 4,5
>
>
>
> If the calendar is nonfixed, then the seasons can be divided into months any way you want, if you want months.
>
>
>
> As I said, I call that a subjective calendar. A subjective seasonal calendar.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
>
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009

[Karl Palmen]

Dear Calendar People

I think Brij is referring to a 1200-year cycle where every year divisible by six has a leap week along with 13 other years. This gives a total of 200 + 13 = 213 leap weeks. This gives a ratio of 213/1200 = 71/400.

Karl

10(09(04 till noon

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
Sent: 27 May 2009 17:54
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Leap Week Calendars RE: Sorry Brij--I confused you with someone else

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Brij Bhushan Vij
<metricvij@...> wrote:
> During earlier discussions I had shown that a 400-year Gregorian cycle could
> be formed using *Div. six(6) Plan* and get the same Mean Year
> =7*(52+1/6+13/1200) =365.2425 days.

?  You can't get 13/1200 of a week out of a 400-year cycle of years
comprised only of whole weeks.
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 

Victor--
 
You wrote:
 
Anyway, I've stated my opinion.
 
I reply:
 
Fair enough, but I didn't get a chance to finish my reply last night. I was called away from the computer, right after I'd written something like the fairly meaningless and unhelpful words, "But not exact". So let me complete my reply better. I mostly want to reply to your final comment, which I haven't done yet, but I might also add a few words before that too.


It seems to me that your long post boils down to this:

The Gregorian calendar tracks the seasons, but the start date of the year is wrong. Perhaps you'd like to revert back to the origins of the calendar, when it began in spring. Then you'd have spring being March, April, May,
summer being June, July, and August,
fall being September, October, and November,
winter being December, January, February.

Note that the leap day comes at the end of the year. In fact, may computer algorithms compute dates this way because of the position of the leap day.

You wrote:
 
Also, the time between equinoxes and solstices is not even as implied.
 
I reply:
 
...implied by whom? I hope not by me, because I've never intended to imply that the time between solstices and equinoxes is equal. In fact I've not only implied, but I've explicitly said, that the time differs because of the Earth's greater orbital speed, and shorter distance from the sun, during the winter, and, in general, because those quantities vary throughout the year. Do you remember my earlier proposal, the Fancy Improved Seasonal Calendar, which had four somewhat unequal seasons, because it gave to them the number of days that the sun spends in each quarter of the ecliptic?
 
You continue:
 
, varying in length by a couple of days. This is because the orbit of the earth is elliptical. Earth is farthest away at northern summer, making summer in the northern hemisphere longer than in the southern hemisphere.
 
I reply:
 
Yes, that's exactly what I said earlier.
 
You continue:
 
Additionally, the year length is different depending on which season you wish to use as your yard stick.
 
I reply:
 
I admit that that comes as a surprise, because I thought that the length of a tropical year, when the sun returns to the same declination and ecliptic longitude, is the same, no matter at which time of the year the determination is made.
 
You continue:

The seasons align perfectly well with the Gregorian calendar since the Gregorian calendar mean year tracks the spring equinox quite well.
 
I reply:
 
If you mean that the Gregorian Calendar doesn't have a problematic amount of jitter, no disagreement there.
 
If you mean that quarters based on the Roman months, starting on Dec. 1 or March 1, align perfectly well with the seasons, then I'd ask: Comapred to what?
 
Certainly not when compared to the Subjective Seasonal Calendar.
 
"Roman, December" or "Roman, March"  (as I call the calendars gotten by starting the Roman months on Dec. 1 or March 1) have too short a seasonal timelag to well represent the average timelag. And June, July, August is too short a summer. It implies that summer trails to an end in August. But we all know that August is full-on hot summer. We all know that it's throughout September that summer trails to an end.
 
You continued:
 
and seasonal variability is much greater than calendar jitter.
 
I reply:
 
Yes, I've been saying that the cyclical drift, or jitter, of the Gregorian leapyear system, or of a leapweek, is negligible, considering the daily and annual actual variations in the actual temperature.
 
Why do people call our calendar the Gregorian Calendar??? The only thing "Gregorian" about it is the leapyear system. "Gregorian Calendar" implies that the whole thing was new in the 16th century. It's the Roman Calendar, with the Gregorian leapyear system.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 
 

 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009