Joining list. Calendar reforms.

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009 May 28, at 18:07 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

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.

Irv replies:

If Earth's orbit were in fact a perfect ellipse, and if its axis were not wobbling (precessing), then the length of the solar cycle would be the same measured from any point.

In actuality, Earth's orbital perihelion drifts around Sun, due to interactions with other planets (mainly Venus and Jupiter) [presently about 21000 years for full cycle, there is an interaction with the rotation axial precession that makes this drift rate seem to be much faster than the actual perihelion drift rate], its rotation axis precesses (about 25600 years for full cycle), and the amount of axial tilt periodically changes (about 41000 years for full cycle).  The net result is that the measured length of the solar cycle presently varies from as short as about 365 days 5 hours 47 minutes 53 seconds to as long as about 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes 35 seconds, a range of about 1 minute 42 seconds, depending on the ecliptic longitude where the measurement starts. The shortest solar year is at the ecliptic longitude of aphelion, the longest is at the ecliptic longitude of perihelion.

Tidal slowing of the Earth rotation rate steadily (more-or-less) makes all solar years shorter, when measured in terms of the mean solar days that all calendars need.

Please see my discussion of "Calendar Seasons, Stable Points in the Solar Cycle" at:

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/leap/index.htm#CS

Victor wrote:  The seasons align perfectly well with the Gregorian calendar since the Gregorian calendar mean year tracks the spring equinox quite well.

Irv replies:  The phrase "perfectly well" is an exaggeration.  The mean year of the Gregorian calendar is almost 12 seconds too long relative to the mean northward equinoctial year, so its calendar season is almost 3 weeks before the equinox, close to the beginning of March.  This suggests that a good place to put any calendar New Year Day might be at its most stable calendar season.  Whoever moved the Gregorian New Year Day from March 1st to January 1st mucked up a seasonal alignment that was better the way it was.

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.

Irv replies:  The Gregorian reform included not only the leap rule adjustment, omitting centurial leap days unless the century year number is divisible by 400, a fairly trivial reform, but more importantly the Gregorian Easter computus is completely different from the one previously used, is much more accurate with respect to the Moon, and the Easter computus also has a solar mean year of 365+97/400 days instead of the previous 365+1/4 days, so that it has zero long-term drift with respect to the calendar.  The Easter computus was a much more complex set of rules to develop, validate, and promulgate.

The name "Gregorian" is rather non-specific, however, because there were 16 people known as Pope Gregory, plus 2 known as Antipope Gregory, although I must admit that only Pope Gregory XIII is associated with any calendar reform.

The term "Roman calendar" usually refers to the Roman calendrical chaos that existed prior to the Julian reform.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

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

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Irv--
 
Thanks for the helpful answers.
 
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

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

OOps!
 
Victor had said:
 
The seasons align perfectly well with the Gregorian calendar [referring to the Roman month system that we use now]
 
I'd replied:
 
In comparison to what?
 
Answer: In comparison to all but one of my proposals! :-)
 
So, my apologies, Victor. When I wrote that, I forgot that some of the season-faults I'd named for Roman,March and Roman, December are shared by five of my six proposals--and by pretty much any calendar proposal, if you try to match it to the seasons.
 
Roman,March and Roman,December don't match the seasons nearly as well as Subjective Seasonal...but, then, what does?  :-)
 
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

[Brillig]

Dear Mike,

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp@...> wrote:
> OOps!
>
> Victor had said:
>
> The seasons align perfectly well with the Gregorian calendar [referring to the Roman month system that we use now]

We don't currently use a Roman calendar. We use the Gregorian
calendar, which is why I used the term. (I'm curious why you're
fixated on referring to it as the Roman calendar.)

Since the discussion in question directly relates to the seasons, this
is an important distinction. The Julian calendar is just as Roman as
the Gregorian calendar but doesn't follow the seasons as well. The
Roman month system, as you term it, doesn't in itself have a season
length. A range of lengths, sure, depending upon the leap year scheme
used. The leap year scheme used, though, is critical for alignment
with the seasons.

I don't think using the term Roman calendar is very useful, since it
is very ambiguous.

Victor

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

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

 
Dear Victor,
 
 
To your words:
 
> > The seasons align perfectly well with the Gregorian calendar
 
I added:
 
[referring to the Roman month system that we use now]

You wrote:
 
> We don't currently use a Roman calendar.
 
I reply:
 
Forgive me, but I didn't say "Roman Calendar", in the passage that you quoted. I said, "Roman month system". I hope that you're not going to say that we aren't using a Roman month system. Why do I call it "the" Roman month system? How about because it's the only Roman month system in use? How about because it's the final month system arrived at by the Romans? Whether they stopped changing the month-system because they were satisfied with it, or because their society fell, doesn't matter. The month-system that I call the Roman month system is their final product.
 
You continued:
 
> We use the Gregorian
> calendar, which is why I used the term. 
 
In that discussion, we weren't comparing leapyear systems. We were talking about month-systems, and which ones are a good match to the seasons. No, we do not use a Gregorian month system. Our month system is due entirely to the Romans. 
 
You continued:
 
(I'm curious why you're
> fixated on referring to it as the Roman calendar.)

I reply:
 
As I said above, in the passage that you quoted, I didn't refer to  "the Roman calendar", but, rather, to the Roman month-system.
 
Aside from that, though, yes I have often said "Roman calendar". That's bcause it has always seemed to me that "calendar" refers to the month system, distinct from the leapyear-system. Maybe, as ye (yous, y'all, you guys) use the term, "calendar" refers to the combination of month-system and leapyear-system,  in which case it would be incorrect to call it the Roman Calendar.
 
Ok, if so, then I agree that I should conform to that usage, and say (as I did in the quoted passage) "Roman month-system" when I'm referring only to the month system. Ok, agreed.
 
 
> Since the discussion in question directly relates to the seasons, this
> is an important distinction. The Julian calendar is just as Roman as
> the Gregorian calendar but doesn't follow the seasons as well.
 
I said from the start that the Gregorian leapyear system is adequately accurate. I was proposing and arguing for better month-systems that better match the seasons. You're changing the subject when you try to imply that we were talking about leapyear systems.
 
We weren't talking about leapyear systems. 

---

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

[Brillig]

Maybe I'm still having trouble understanding what you're after.
Perhaps it's only the alignment of the start of the year that you have
a problem with. If so, I see no great value in doing so, but we've
been over that already. The Roman month system seems perfectly
suitable to what you want. There are twelve months that are easily
divided into roughly equal quarters. Anything beyond that requires
more than a month system -- a calendar.

By the way, a calendar is just a way to name days. Nearly all
calendars thus are dependent upon a specific leap year scheme.
Otherwise, naming a day would not be well defined or ambiguous.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:29 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp@...> wrote:

>
> Dear Victor,
>
>
> To your words:
>
>> > The seasons align perfectly well with the Gregorian calendar
>
> I added:
>
> [referring to the Roman month system that we use now]
>
> You wrote:
>
>> We don't currently use a Roman calendar.
>
> I reply:
>
> Forgive me, but I didn't say "Roman Calendar", in the passage that you
> quoted. I said, "Roman month system". I hope that you're not going to say
> that we aren't using a Roman month system. Why do I call it "the" Roman
> month system? How about because it's the only Roman month system in use? How
> about because it's the final month system arrived at by the Romans? Whether
> they stopped changing the month-system because they were satisfied with it,
> or because their society fell, doesn't matter. The month-system that I call
> the Roman month system is their final product.
>
> You continued:
>
>> We use the Gregorian
>> calendar, which is why I used the term.
>
> In that discussion, we weren't comparing leapyear systems. We were talking
> about month-systems, and which ones are a good match to the seasons. No, we
> do not use a Gregorian month system. Our month system is due entirely to the
> Romans.
>
> You continued:
>
> (I'm curious why you're
>> fixated on referring to it as the Roman calendar.)
>
> I reply:
>
> As I said above, in the passage that you quoted, I didn't refer to  "the
> Roman calendar", but, rather, to the Roman month-system.
>
> Aside from that, though, yes I have often said "Roman calendar". That's
> bcause it has always seemed to me that "calendar" refers to the month
> system, distinct from the leapyear-system. Maybe, as ye (yous, y'all, you
> guys) use the term, "calendar" refers to the combination of month-system and
> leapyear-system,  in which case it would be incorrect to call it the Roman
> Calendar.
>
> Ok, if so, then I agree that I should conform to that usage, and say (as I
> did in the quoted passage) "Roman month-system" when I'm referring only to
> the month system. Ok, agreed.
>
>
>> Since the discussion in question directly relates to the seasons, this
>> is an important distinction. The Julian calendar is just as Roman as
>> the Gregorian calendar but doesn't follow the seasons as well.
>
> I said from the start that the Gregorian leapyear system is adequately
> accurate. I was proposing and arguing for better month-systems that better
> match the seasons. You're changing the subject when you try to imply that we
> were talking about leapyear systems.
>
> We weren't talking about leapyear systems.
>
>
> ________________________________
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 
Victor--
 
I didn't get a chance to finish my reply, so I'm briefly writing again:
 
You wrote:
 
The
> Roman month system, as you term it, doesn't in itself have a season
> length.
 
I reply:
 
Of course it doesn't. It doesn't explicitly refer to the seasons. However, we were talking about the use of its quarters to represent the seasons, and, the quarter we were considering as its summer quarter(June, July, August) does indeed have a length--a length that is too short to well-represent summer.
 
(As I admitted before, that mismatch of quarters to seasons is shared with any calendar, such as Asimov's, and 5 of my 6 proposals, which attempts to match the seasons with equal quarters).

That remains true no matter what leapyear season you use. The question of leapyear systems is entirely irrelevant to the fit of various month-systems to the seasons.
 
Leapyear system does affect the continuing match of year to seasons, because it affects drift of the year with respect to the equinoxes and solstices. However, I'd already said that the Gregorian leapyear system doesn't have excessive cyclical drift (jitter), and we were not comparing about leapyear systems. So, leapyear systems were not an issue in that discussion.
 
You continued:

> I don't think using the term Roman calendar is very useful, since it
> is very ambiguous.
 
I reply:
 
Well, "Roman calendar" is incorrect if you take "calendar to refer to the combination of month-system and leapyear-system, and so I agree to stop using that term.
 
However, no matter how many month systems the Romans used at various times, there is only one current one. The use of "the" to refer to the current, final version of something is universal. "The California vehicle code" refers to the current version, the latest version, unless otherwise specified, as does "the Roman month system".
 
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]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:01 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp@...> wrote:
>
> Of course it doesn't. It doesn't explicitly refer to the seasons. However, we were talking about the use of its quarters to represent the seasons, and, the quarter we were considering as its summer quarter(June, July, August) does indeed have a length--a length that is too short to well-represent summer.

Well, that depends on where, doesn't it? Take Bismarck, North Dakota,
for example. Daily high temperatures don't climb to 80F until mid-late
June, and then fall back below 80F again at the end of August. Death
Valley, California, on the other hand, gets over 80F starting early
May, and lasts until mid-October. Anchorage doesn't even get up to 80F
for an average high even in the hottest part of the year.

My point is that trying to find a division of the year that is
suitable for everywhere is an excercise in futility.

> That remains true no matter what leapyear season you use. The question of leapyear systems is entirely irrelevant to the fit of various month-systems to the seasons.

It's very relevant. As I said before, it's why the Julian calendar
drifts with the seasons and the Gregorian does not, despite both using
the same arrangement of months.

> However, no matter how many month systems the Romans used at various times, there is only one current one.

I would say zero. I'm happy to be corrected on this. But when I hear
of the Roman calendar or Roman months, I think of ancient Rome.

>The use of "the" to refer to the current, final version of something is universal. "The California vehicle code" refers to the current version, the latest version, unless otherwise specified, as does "the Roman month system".

Usually the article "the" doesn't imply "current" but "only". In this
case, ancient would be implied to most readers, I think.

Victor

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Victor--
 
You wrote:
 
> Maybe I'm still having trouble understanding what you're after.
 
I reply:
 
Then I'll say it again: What should a calendar be based on, and its year-divisions named for, if not the natural year, and its seasons. Therefore, I prefer that a new calendar explicitly refer to the seasons, even if it can't perfectly match them everywhere. And, more than that, I also prefer that the calendar's month-system match the seasons as well as possible. That's why I propose the Subjective Seasonal calendar. I propose it with slightly different month systems for fixed and nonfixed versions.
 
I don't specify a leapyear system for the nonfixed version, but the Gregorian leapyear system is adequate for that. A symmetrical leapyear system would be better still, but I don't make an issue of that. For the fixed version, I suggest leapweeks, applied so as to minimize the calendar's maximum drift with respect to the tropical year.
 
You continued:

> Perhaps it's only the alignment of the start of the year that you have
> a problem with.
 
I reply:
 
I have no idea where you got that. I certainly never said it.
 
I've spoken of the desirability of a calendar explicitly referring to the seasons, and I've compared how well different month-systems match our perception of the seasons.
 
You continued:
 
If so, I see no great value in doing so
 
I reply:
 
Doing what?? Before that statement in your message, you hadn't referred to doing anything.
 
 
You continue:
 
, but we've
> been over that already.
 
I reply:
 
Probably, whatever "that" is.
 
You continue:
 
The Roman month system seems perfectly
> suitable to what you want.
 
Well, let's see:
 
Does it explicitly refer to the seasons? can its months be arranged in groupings that match the seasons anything like as well as the Subjective Seasonal Calendar?
 
(I've admitted that 5 of my 6 proposals don't match the perceived seasons better than quarters of the Roman month system)
 
 
And is it as free of arbitrariness as most calendar reform proposals are?
 
Evidentally your impression of what I want differs considerably from what I've been saying that I want.
 
You continued:
 
 There are twelve months that are easily
> divided into roughly equal quarters.
 
I reply:
 
Yes, and that's sufficient if we don't mind assuming equal seasons. But the seasons that we perceive, as described by authors over the centuries, are not equal in length.
 
Since 5 of my proposals use quarters to represent seasons, I can't say that quarters are entirely inadequate. I do say that they're distinctly suboptimal. The use of quarters to represent seasons is greatly improved-upon by the Subjective Seasonal Calendar.
 
You continued:
 
Anything beyond that requires
> more than a month system -- a calendar.

I reply:
 
I make no issue about leapyear systems. For fixed calendars, I prefer leapweeks, but there hasn't been any dispute here about leapweeks vs blank-days, at least no since my arrival.
 
You continued:
 
>
> By the way, a calendar is just a way to name days. Nearly all
> calendars thus are dependent upon a specific leap year scheme.
> Otherwise, naming a day would not be well defined or ambiguous.
 
I reply:
 
Have I said or implied otherwise? I accept the Gregorian leapyear system for nonfixed calendars. Though it doesn't minimize jitter, its jitter isn't excessive.
 
And no, I have never implied that we shouldn't have a "leap year scheme". I've spoken of several that would be good. So it isn't entirely clear why you keep going back to the subject of leapyear schemes.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009

[Brillig]

We're going in circles, so I'm going to leave this discussion.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:32 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp@...> wrote:

Victor--

You wrote:

> Maybe I'm still having trouble understanding what you're after.

I reply:

Then I'll say it again: What should a calendar be based on, and its year-divisions named for, if not the natural year, and its seasons. Therefore, I prefer that a new calendar explicitly refer to the seasons, even if it can't perfectly match them everywhere. And, more than that, I also prefer that the calendar's month-system match the seasons as well as possible. That's why I propose the Subjective Seasonal calendar. I propose it with slightly different month systems for fixed and nonfixed versions.

I don't specify a leapyear system for the nonfixed version, but the Gregorian leapyear system is adequate for that. A symmetrical leapyear system would be better still, but I don't make an issue of that. For the fixed version, I suggest leapweeks, applied so as to minimize the calendar's maximum drift with respect to the tropical year.

You continued:

> Perhaps it's only the alignment of the start of the year that you have
> a problem with.

I reply:

I have no idea where you got that. I certainly never said it.

I've spoken of the desirability of a calendar explicitly referring to the seasons, and I've compared how well different month-systems match our perception of the seasons.

You continued:

If so, I see no great value in doing so

I reply:

Doing what?? Before that statement in your message, you hadn't referred to doing anything.


You continue:

, but we've
> been over that already.

I reply:

Probably, whatever "that" is.

You continue:

The Roman month system seems perfectly
> suitable to what you want.

Well, let's see:

Does it explicitly refer to the seasons? can its months be arranged in groupings that match the seasons anything like as well as the Subjective Seasonal Calendar?

(I've admitted that 5 of my 6 proposals don't match the perceived seasons better than quarters of the Roman month system)


And is it as free of arbitrariness as most calendar reform proposals are?

Evidentally your impression of what I want differs considerably from what I've been saying that I want.

You continued:

 There are twelve months that are easily
> divided into roughly equal quarters.

I reply:

Yes, and that's sufficient if we don't mind assuming equal seasons. But the seasons that we perceive, as described by authors over the centuries, are not equal in length.

Since 5 of my proposals use quarters to represent seasons, I can't say that quarters are entirely inadequate. I do say that they're distinctly suboptimal. The use of quarters to represent seasons is greatly improved-upon by the Subjective Seasonal Calendar.

You continued:

Anything beyond that requires
> more than a month system -- a calendar.

I reply:

I make no issue about leapyear systems. For fixed calendars, I prefer leapweeks, but there hasn't been any dispute here about leapweeks vs blank-days, at least no since my arrival.

You continued:

>
> By the way, a calendar is just a way to name days. Nearly all
> calendars thus are dependent upon a specific leap year scheme.
> Otherwise, naming a day would not be well defined or ambiguous.

I reply:

Have I said or implied otherwise? I accept the Gregorian leapyear system for nonfixed calendars. Though it doesn't minimize jitter, its jitter isn't excessive.

And no, I have never implied that we shouldn't have a "leap year scheme". I've spoken of several that would be good. So it isn't entirely clear why you keep going back to the subject of leapyear schemes.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>
Victor--
 
I'd said:
 
>> Of course it doesn't. It doesn't explicitly refer to the seasons. However, we were talking about the use of its quarters to represent the seasons, and, the quarter we were considering as its summer quarter(June, July, August) does indeed have a length--a length that is too short to well-represent summer.

 
> Well, that depends on where, doesn't it?...
 
I reply
 
By absolute temperature, agriculture or horticulture, summer can be shorter, which can be allowed-for locally. Again, I'm only proposing a framework, locally interpretable, not an exact model.
 
But that agricultural short summer overlooks a commonality:
 
Everywhere, solar declination changes in the same way. Everywhere conditions follow the declination. Though it rapidly makes one pass by the equinox, the sun goes out and back at its extremes. And dec changes more slowly in its extremes, hence the word "solstice".
 
So the declination spends more time at high absolute-values, and the conditions going with extreme declinations will be how it soon sets in, after a relatively brief transitional period.

 
If the orbit were circular, sin(abs(dec)) would be in the top half of its range for exactly 1/3 of the year, twice a year. Santa Cruz's summer has dec>= 54 percent of its maximum, for .32 year.
 
I've lived in tropoical U.S. too, where summer is characterized by frequent lightning and heavy rain (and the usual high temperature of course) That starts arriving and soon sets in around the arrival of June.
 
Different places the dec has different consequences, but dec & its consequences still follows the same pattern.
 
You wrote:
 
>
> My point is that trying to find a division of the year that is
> suitable for everywhere is an excercise in futility.

I reply:
 
Then it's a popular one: Quarterly we're told that a season is beginning. This shows there's interest in that, and that people are tolerating rather low accuracy--as would I when I accept
Asimov's calendar. But we can do better
 
 

>
>> That remains true no matter what leapyear season you use. The question of leapyear systems is entirely irrelevant to the fit of various month-systems to the seasons.
>
> It's very relevant. As I said before, it's why the Julian calendar
> drifts with the seasons and the Gregorian does not, despite both using
> the same arrangement of months.
>
>> However, no matter how many month systems the Romans used at various times, there is only one current one.
>
> I would say zero. I'm happy to be corrected on this. But when I hear
> of the Roman calendar or Roman months, I think of ancient Rome.
>
>>The use of "the" to refer to the current, final version of something is universal. "The California vehicle code" refers to the current version, the latest version, unless otherwise specified, as does "the Roman month system".
>
> Usually the article "the" doesn't imply "current" but "only". In this
> case, ancient would be implied to most readers, I think.
>
> Victor
>

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

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 
When I spoke of dec in Santa Cruz summer, I meant lag-adjusted dec: dec 38 days previous.
 
On June 21, all the vapid media twits will tell us that it's the first day of summer. So, we already have an official uniform definition of the seasons. Let's have one that makes sense to us. If it's part of the calendar, that will give the calendar relevance to the natural year that it measures.
 
I'd like to add to my reply to a comment, and then catch a few that I didn't have time to reply to before:
 
Victor--
 
You wrote:
 
> Well, that depends on where, doesn't it? Take Bismarck, North Dakota,
> for example. Daily high temperatures don't climb to 80F until mid-late
> June, and then fall back below 80F again at the end of August. Death
> Valley, California, on the other hand, gets over 80F starting early
> May, and lasts until mid-October. Anchorage doesn't even get up to 80F
> for an average high even in the hottest part of the year.
 
I continue my reply:
 
If you want to define summer by a specific temperature, uniform worldwide, then I don't agree. Summer in Barrow needn't be as hot as summer in Barstow.
 
 
You wrote:
 
> I would say zero. I'm happy to be corrected on this. But when I hear
> of the Roman calendar or Roman months, I think of ancient Rome.

 
I reply:
 
Fine. I'll call our current month-system "Our Roman month-system". No matter how many month systems the Romans had, only one of them is ours, in the sense of being in use by us.
 
I've made one concession after another because I'm not here to quibble.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® goes with you.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

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

Victor said:
 
We're going in circles, so I'm going to leave this discussion.

I comment:
 
Correct. Going in circles because Victor was repeating the same objections or questions, &/or asking me for things that I'd already said. My answers to Victors questions and objections have been the same each time that Victor expressed those questions or objections.
 
Additionally, in his letter below, there were a number of instances where it wasn't at all clear what he meant. Without knowing what he meant, it wasn't possible to give an answer.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 

 

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:32 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp@...> wrote:

Victor--

You wrote:

> Maybe I'm still having trouble understanding what you're after.

I reply:

Then I'll say it again: What should a calendar be based on, and its year-divisions named for, if not the natural year, and its seasons. Therefore, I prefer that a new calendar explicitly refer to the seasons, even if it can't perfectly match them everywhere. And, more than that, I also prefer that the calendar's month-system match the seasons as well as possible. That's why I propose the Subjective Seasonal calendar. I propose it with slightly different month systems for fixed and nonfixed versions.

I don't specify a leapyear system for the nonfixed version, but the Gregorian leapyear system is adequate for that. A symmetrical leapyear system would be better still, but I don't make an issue of that. For the fixed version, I suggest leapweeks, applied so as to minimize the calendar's maximum drift with respect to the tropical year.

You continued:

> Perhaps it's only the alignment of the start of the year that you have
> a problem with.

I reply:

I have no idea where you got that. I certainly never said it.

I've spoken of the desirability of a calendar explicitly referring to the seasons, and I've compared how well different month-systems match our perception of the seasons.

You continued:

If so, I see no great value in doing so

I reply:

Doing what?? Before that statement in your message, you hadn't referred to doing anything.


You continue:

, but we've
> been over that already.

I reply:

Probably, whatever "that" is.

You continue:

The Roman month system seems perfectly
> suitable to what you want.

Well, let's see:

Does it explicitly refer to the seasons? can its months be arranged in groupings that match the seasons anything like as well as the Subjective Seasonal Calendar?

(I've admitted that 5 of my 6 proposals don't match the perceived seasons better than quarters of the Roman month system)


And is it as free of arbitrariness as most calendar reform proposals are?

Evidentally your impression of what I want differs considerably from what I've been saying that I want.

You continued:

 There are twelve months that are easily
> divided into roughly equal quarters.

I reply:

Yes, and that's sufficient if we don't mind assuming equal seasons. But the seasons that we perceive, as described by authors over the centuries, are not equal in length.

Since 5 of my proposals use quarters to represent seasons, I can't say that quarters are entirely inadequate. I do say that they're distinctly suboptimal. The use of quarters to represent seasons is greatly improved-upon by the Subjective Seasonal Calendar.

You continued:

Anything beyond that requires
> more than a month system -- a calendar.

I reply:

I make no issue about leapyear systems. For fixed calendars, I prefer leapweeks, but there hasn't been any dispute here about leapweeks vs blank-days, at least no since my arrival.

You continued:

>
> By the way, a calendar is just a way to name days. Nearly all
> calendars thus are dependent upon a specific leap year scheme.
> Otherwise, naming a day would not be well defined or ambiguous.

I reply:

Have I said or implied otherwise? I accept the Gregorian leapyear system for nonfixed calendars. Though it doesn't minimize jitter, its jitter isn't excessive.

And no, I have never implied that we shouldn't have a "leap year scheme". I've spoken of several that would be good. So it isn't entirely clear why you keep going back to the subject of leapyear schemes.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009

---

Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check it out.

[Karl Palmen]

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

Dear Mike, Victor and Calendar People

 

Mike said: Then I'll say it again: What should a calendar be based on, and its year-divisions named for, if not the natural year, and its seasons

I think this sum up his view very well (but may change my mind if I’ve missed out something else important).

 

First I notice the word ‘should’ which implies one solution that is clearly better than any other and is therefore the solution we should adopt.

 

For a global calendar, the divisions of the year cannot be named after seasons at all, because of the two hemispheres and other variations of the seasons across the globe.  However, one can for any given place have each date of the calendar year correspond  to the same season every year. This date-season correspondence would be greatly different for some different places. It cannot be made the same for all places.

 

Naming the divisions of the year after seasons for a global calendar requires that the correspondence between dates and seasons is (almost) the same throughout the world. Therefore it should not be attempted for a global calendar, but it could be done for a local calendar, such as a college calendar.

 

For a Global calendar it does not matter what the names of the divisions are provided they are not misleading. They could be Roman-based names or even letters or numbers. There is not one best solution. Season names may be used locally, but for global use (e.g. this list), it’d be necessary for example to say the you mean period A (Global name), by Winter (Local name UK). Such information could be encoded into each locale used by a computer system.

 

Karl

 

10(09(09 till noon

 

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
Sent: 01 June 2009 21:08
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Roman bum-rap

 

Victor said:
 
We're going in circles, so I'm going to leave this discussion.

I comment:
 
Correct. Going in circles because Victor was repeating the same objections or questions, &/or asking me for things that I'd already said. My answers to Victors questions and objections have been the same each time that Victor expressed those questions or objections.
 
Additionally, in his letter below, there were a number of instances where it wasn't at all clear what he meant. Without knowing what he meant, it wasn't possible to give an answer.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 

 

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:32 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp@...> wrote:

Victor--

You wrote:

> Maybe I'm still having trouble understanding what you're after.

I reply:

Then I'll say it again: What should a calendar be based on, and its year-divisions named for, if not the natural year, and its seasons. Therefore, I prefer that a new calendar explicitly refer to the seasons, even if it can't perfectly match them everywhere. And, more than that, I also prefer that the calendar's month-system match the seasons as well as possible. That's why I propose the Subjective Seasonal calendar. I propose it with slightly different month systems for fixed and nonfixed versions.

I don't specify a leapyear system for the nonfixed version, but the Gregorian leapyear system is adequate for that. A symmetrical leapyear system would be better still, but I don't make an issue of that. For the fixed version, I suggest leapweeks, applied so as to minimize the calendar's maximum drift with respect to the tropical year.

You continued:

> Perhaps it's only the alignment of the start of the year that you have
> a problem with.

I reply:

I have no idea where you got that. I certainly never said it.

I've spoken of the desirability of a calendar explicitly referring to the seasons, and I've compared how well different month-systems match our perception of the seasons.

You continued:

If so, I see no great value in doing so

I reply:

Doing what?? Before that statement in your message, you hadn't referred to doing anything.


You continue:

, but we've
> been over that already.

I reply:

Probably, whatever "that" is.

You continue:

The Roman month system seems perfectly
> suitable to what you want.

Well, let's see:

Does it explicitly refer to the seasons? can its months be arranged in groupings that match the seasons anything like as well as the Subjective Seasonal Calendar?

(I've admitted that 5 of my 6 proposals don't match the perceived seasons better than quarters of the Roman month system)


And is it as free of arbitrariness as most calendar reform proposals are?

Evidentally your impression of what I want differs considerably from what I've been saying that I want.

You continued:

 There are twelve months that are easily
> divided into roughly equal quarters.

I reply:

Yes, and that's sufficient if we don't mind assuming equal seasons. But the seasons that we perceive, as described by authors over the centuries, are not equal in length.

Since 5 of my proposals use quarters to represent seasons, I can't say that quarters are entirely inadequate. I do say that they're distinctly suboptimal. The use of quarters to represent seasons is greatly improved-upon by the Subjective Seasonal Calendar.

You continued:

Anything beyond that requires
> more than a month system -- a calendar.

I reply:

I make no issue about leapyear systems. For fixed calendars, I prefer leapweeks, but there hasn't been any dispute here about leapweeks vs blank-days, at least no since my arrival.

You continued:

>
> By the way, a calendar is just a way to name days. Nearly all
> calendars thus are dependent upon a specific leap year scheme.
> Otherwise, naming a day would not be well defined or ambiguous.

I reply:

Have I said or implied otherwise? I accept the Gregorian leapyear system for nonfixed calendars. Though it doesn't minimize jitter, its jitter isn't excessive.

And no, I have never implied that we shouldn't have a "leap year scheme". I've spoken of several that would be good. So it isn't entirely clear why you keep going back to the subject of leapyear schemes.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009

 

---

Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check it out.

---

Scanned by iCritical.

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009 Jun 2, at 04:39 , Palmen, KEV (Karl) wrote:

For a global calendar, the divisions of the year cannot be named after seasons at all, because of the two hemispheres and other variations of the seasons across the globe.  However, one can for any given place have each date of the calendar year correspond  to the same season every year. This date-season correspondence would be greatly different for some different places. It cannot be made the same for all places.

Irv adds:  Agreed for short-term purposes.  For long-term purposes, only those dates that are close to the the stable calendar season of the leap cycle can correspond to the same season every year.  Other dates will exhibit long-term drift because the calendar mean year will be either shorter or longer than the season mean years corresponding to the respective dates.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

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

[Karl Palmen]

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

Dear Irv and Calendar People

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Irv Bromberg
Sent: 02 June 2009 13:23
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Calendar with Season Names Cannot be Global RE: Roman bum-rap

 

On 2009 Jun 2, at 04:39 , Palmen, KEV (Karl) wrote:

For a global calendar, the divisions of the year cannot be named after seasons at all, because of the two hemispheres and other variations of the seasons across the globe.  However, one can for any given place have each date of the calendar year correspond  to the same season every year. This date-season correspondence would be greatly different for some different places. It cannot be made the same for all places.

 

Irv adds:  Agreed for short-term purposes.  For long-term purposes, only those dates that are close to the the stable calendar season of the leap cycle can correspond to the same season every year.  Other dates will exhibit long-term drift because the calendar mean year will be either shorter or longer than the season mean years corresponding to the respective dates.

 

For civil purposes, such drift is negligible (while the calendar seasons exist) and the correspondence is sufficiently accurate. Should calendar seasons cease to exist, the leap year rule can be modified to take account of astronomical observations made at that time (rather than when the calendar was invented).

 

I better explain about the Calendar Season. Since the length of the tropical year depends upon the time of year it begins (range about 365.24165 to 365.24275 days at present) and varies continuously with respect of the time of year it begins, a calendar whose mean year lies within the range (e.g. Gregorian calendar) has two seasons that are not drifting with respect to the calendar. Irv has found that one of these two seasons changes very little with time and this he refers to as the stable calendar season. For the Gregorian calendar, the stable calendar season occurs in early March.

 

Karl

---

Scanned by iCritical.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 
Referring to my Subjective Seasonal Calendar proposal:
 
For the nonfixed version, I suggest keeping the Gregorian leapyear system, for proposal-simplicity.
 
Leapday:
 
For the nonfixed version, if the Gregorian leapyear system is kept, then I suggest that leapyear remain in winter, as it is now. Then, it can accurately be said, "The first day of calendar Summer is always June 1st of the old calendar. The first day of calendar Winter is always December 1st of the old calendar.
 
If there are no months, then leapday would be added to Winter. If there are months, then add leapday to the Winter's first short month. With the month-system I suggest below, that would be the 2nd month of the year, just as now.
 
Months:
 
For the nonfixed version, I suggest the following month-lengths for the seasons' months:
 
Summer & Winter: 30,29,29,29
Spring: 33,32
Autumn: 33,33
 
The months should be named for their place in a season. For instance, Winter would have these months: WinterI, WinterII, WinterIII, WinterIV.
 
To fix or not to fix?
 
It's been my impression that most calendar reform advocates prefer a fixed calendar, because, reasonably, they probably feel that, if you're going to change the calendar, then you might as well do so in a way that brings maximum convenience. I'm sure they're right. In fact, it might also be that, the more you offer, the more public interest there will be.
 
But of course there's a contrary argument: The more you seek to change, the more you complicate the proposal.

For a fixed calendar, either you have blank days, with their falsification of the day of the week, completely unacceptable to a number of religious groups, or else you have leapweeks--a complete and radical departure from the currently-used leapyear system. I think we'd all agree that, of those two possibilities, only the leapweeks could have a chance as a proposal. Aside from that, it's the only kind of fixed calendar acceptable to me.
 
But might that additional radical departure, in the leapyear system, make the proposal more difficult to gain adoption? More for someone to object to?
 
Also, in order to get the full convenience benefit of a fixed calendar, it's necessary for the month-lengths to be multiples of 7. The possibilities for that have their acceptance problems, such as the 13 months of 28 days. And the 35,28,28 months differ from eachother by an entire week. That would be fine with me, but some might object that the payment periods would be too unequal. Of course, as pointed out, billers and customers could agree on other, equal, payment periods, but it's undeniably a complication, compared to now. The other alternative would be to just number the days in the seasons (if it's a seasonal calendar). But that, too, is a radical departure. And my calendar Summer and Winter of 117 bays (nonfixed) or 17 weeks (fixed) take some of the convenience away, due to the great number of consecutively-numbered days.
 
So I don't know which is the more winnable proposal. As I was saying above, with nonfixed Subjective Seasonal, Gregorian leapyear system, leapday in Winter, you can say, "Summer always starts on the old calendar's June 1, and Winter always starts on the old Calendar's December 1st".
 
Anyway, my purpose here is to ask your opinion: Would successful calendar reform be more likely if the proposed calendar is fixed, or if it's nonfixed?
 
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_Storage_062009

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 
Dear Karl and Calendar People,
 
 
Let me copy here something that I said at the end of this posting, because I like it too much to bury it at the end of the posting:
 
[about whether there's some kind of global similarity that justifies seasonal-naming]
 
"I claim that there is something similar, a qualitatively similar pattern of variation, because everywhere the local consequences of declination will track declination."
 
You, Karl, wrote:
 
> Mike said: Then I'll say it again: What should a calendar be based
> on, and its year-divisions named for, if not the natural year, and its seasons


> I think this sum up his view very well
 
I reply:
 
Yes, that perfectly sums up my view about calendars.
 
You continued:
 
> First I notice the word ‘should’ which implies one solution that is clearly better than any other and
> is therefore the solution we should adopt.
 
I reply:
 
It isn't my place to tell you what to adopt, or to ask you to take my word for what you should adopt.
I state some arguments and justifications for my claims, and yes, I state my conclusions.
 
But I claim that there's nothing wrong with saying "should". I claim that we needn't keep our conclusions secret.
 
You continued:

> For a global calendar, the divisions of the year cannot be named
> after seasons at all, because of the two hemispheres and other variations of
> the seasons across the globe.
 
I reply:
 
Of course. That's why I suggested that, for international use, at least when communicating with people both north and south of the equator, it's better to name the calendar seasons by numbers or letters.
 
YOu continued:
 
However, one can for any given place have
> each date of the calendar year correspond to the same season every year.
 
I reply:
 
Of course, and that's what we have now. But what if we're discarding the current calendar and starting over, from scratch? How would you then name the year-subdivisions? What is the most natural and logical basis for naming them? I suggest that it's obvious that the seasons are the natural basis for naming the divisions of the year.
 
Therefore, such naming is the least arbitrary subdivision-naming. Yes, even though it can't perfectly model the seasons everywhere.
 
You continued:
 
> This date-season correspondence would be greatly different for some different places.
> It cannot be made the same for all places.
 
 
It's easy to overstate that case. Yes, climate-wise, obviously nothing can be exactly the same everywhere. No, that doesn't mean we should give up and not use seasonal-naming.
 
Typical temperature bounds differ throughout the world. Seasons are reversed in the north and south hemispheres. And even the pattern of warm and cold is different at the equator. Rainyness occurs at different times of year at different places. So, you might say, how can you meaningfully give seasonal names to year-divisions?
 
But, as I said, there's a commonality: The Sun's declination is the same no matter where you live. It's annual variation is the same everywhere. Its rate of change, at a particular time in the tropical year, is the same everywhere.
 
Even if the seasonal timelag were the same everywhere, the consequences of a particular solar declination differs around the world. But, as I said, the pattern of that declination-variation is the same everywhere.
 
As I was saying before, the sun's movement on its way toward one extreme declination is more rapid as it passes the equinox. In the declination-value's extreme excursions, it must go out and back, thereby spending more time out there. In contrast, it rapidly, unidirectionally, rushes through the intermediate periods near the equinox. Additionally, the more extreme the declination is, the more slowly it varies, hence the word "solstice" (which, I've read, refers to the sun standing still, with regard to declination-change).
 
This pattern of the solar declination tending to reside in its more extreme values, and quickly pass its inbetween transional values--this is so, wherever you live.
 
Something similar is happening everywhere, seasonally, even if its local consequences of that common pattern aren't the same.
 
Writers in various continents in the Northern Hemisphere have said the same things about the character of the months, such as Leigh Hunt's observation that June is full summer, something that most in the world's north temperate zone would agree on, and that December is full winter. And, some places where summer means heavy rain and lightning, that heavy rain and lightning tends to arrive and set in with the arrival of June.
 
Sure, the Subjective Seasonal Calendar's seasonal divisions might not be the most ideal divisions for everywhere, but they represent a pattern that is recognizable anywhere.
 
On the equator, the declination still changes more slowly at its extremes, quickly passing through the intermediate region. One would expect the consequences of the declination there to follow a similar pattern. A variation pattern qualitatively the same everywhere.
 
You continued:
 
> Naming the divisions of the year after seasons for a global
> calendar requires that the correspondence between dates and seasons is (almost)
> the same throughout the world.
 
I'd say that it requires only that there be, in my words above, "a similar pattern, a variation pattern qualitatively the same everywhere."
 
 
You continued:
 
Therefore it should not be attempted for a
> global calendar
 
I reply:
 
Did I hear the word "should"? Just kidding, we all have the right to say "should".
 
It depends on what it is that we're trying to represent. It depends on what we claim is similar globally.
 
I claim that there is something similar, a qualitatively similar pattern of variation, because everywhere the local consequences of declination will track declination.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2009 May 27, at 12:50 , Victor Engel wrote:

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

That is not true for mean years of days 365+15/62 days (GCD=2) or 365+157/648 days (GCD=216).

A fraction of a day is exact to the second only if 86400 is divisible by the denominator.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

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

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 
Just a few concluding comments, in reply to comments that have been made by others.
 
First, I'm not trying to convince those here who disagree with me. But someone else might read these messages, maybe as they're sent out, or maybe later, in the archives. Therefore, it's best that I answer the objections that have been posted, as to the feasibility of a seasonal calendar.

Karl wrote:
 
For a global calendar, the divisions of the year cannot be named after seasons at all, because of the two hemispheres and other variations of the seasons across the globe.  However, one can for any given place have each date of the calendar year correspond  to the same season every year. This date-season correspondence would be greatly different for some different places. It cannot be made the same for all places.
 
Naming the divisions of the year after seasons for a global calendar requires that the correspondence between dates and seasons is (almost) the same throughout the world. Therefore it should not be attempted for a global calendar, but it could be done for a local calendar, such as a college calendar.
 
For a Global calendar it does not matter what the names of the divisions are provided they are not misleading. They could be Roman-based names or even letters or numbers. There is not one best solution. Season names may be used locally, but for global use (e.g. this list), it’d be necessary for example to say the you mean period A (Global name), by Winter (Local name UK). Such information could be encoded into each locale used by a computer system.
 
I reply:
 
That probably summs up the anti-seasonal position.
 
But what if it isn't claimed that the seasonal calendar's seasonally-named year-divisions are a perfect match everywhere? What if they're merely offered as a starting point, a framework, locally correctable and interpretable?
 
After all, you regularly adjust for your local time-zone, when the GMT of an event is stated. So, local interpretation of global information isn't something new. And if there is a difference between perceived vs calendar-shown beginning and end of the periods that go with extreme high or low solar declination, then you'll know that. You'll know how far the calendrical seasons are off in your geographical region. With the Roman months, you know, from expereience what the climate is like in various months. With a seasonal calendar you'd soon know the same thing. The difference is that its seasonal naming of its year-divisions is a starting framework.
 
Another way to express the difference: The Subjective Seasonal Calendar relates to the sun's declination. What if I had instead proposed a seasonal calendar that referred only to the declination? Say the "North" season is when the sun's north-declination is in the top half of its range; and the "South" season is when the sun's south-declination is in the top half of that southern range? YOu probably wouldn't object to the worldwide accuracy of that.
 
But that's little different from what I've actually proposed. What I've called "calendar Summer" (but which I could instead call "North", for international purposes), is a period during which the sun's lag-adjusted north-declination happens to be a little over half of its maximum value. By "lag-adjusted declination", I mean the declination 38 days previous. So to facilitate comparison to terrestrial conditions, I've used lag-adjusted declination. Aside from those differences, my propososed seasonal calendar could be called a declination calendar.
 
In places as spatially separated, and as climatologically different, as England, California, and throughout the U.S. it's been widely agreed that June is the first summer month and December is the first winter month.
 
How far off would it be to suggest, as a starting point, a framework from which to work, that, in June, conditions (in whatever place) have settled into a distinct high north-declination mode, and that, in December, conditions have settled into a distinct high south-declination mode? That certainly agrees with what's been written throughout England and the U.S.
 
And that between those periods is a more rapidly-progressing transition between those two periods?
 
As I've said, I've seen estimates that the seasonal timelag typically varies from 1 to 1.5 months. So I've used 1.25 months as an estimated average seasonal timelag. Yes, for some places the lag will differ a little, maybe usually not more than a week at the most, in one direction or the other.
 
I've read that, in the more oceanic, and less populated, southern hemisphere, the seasonal timelag is greater, because of water's large specific-heat. Ok, then residents there wouldn't mind the fact that the calendar's representation of the beginning of the extreme declination seasons could be a little early for them. No big deal, allowing for the oceanic influence on their climate there. As I said, we already allow for our local timezone, as a matter of course. So maybe some areas are slightly different "seasonal-change time-zones".
 
Sure, for international purposes, numbers or letters would be better than "Winter, Spring, Summer and Autumn". I prefer letters to numbers, since there are already enough numbers to desgnate the seasons' months and their days. It seems to me that someone said that Asimov suggested A, B, C,D. Better yet, why not name the seasons by the declination that causes them: Starting with Winter, "South, Northward, North, Southward". Just one possible suggestion. That could also be interpreted as a naming according to the hemisphere that is having summer.
 
Karl, you and others have said that we shouldn't have an official attempt to designate dates for the seasons. But we already have that. As I said, four times a year, the media repeatedly tell us that Winter, Spring, Summer or Autumn is beginning. So it isn't as if I'm suggesting something new. I'm just suggesting that something already in existence be given better seasonal relevance.
 
So it isn't really a question of whether to have official season boundaries, but it's rather a question of how much sense we want those seasonal definitions to make.
 
And I'm suggesting that it be in the calendar. Why not? If we're going to always be told when the seasons begin, why not have it in the calendar too? Calendars, after all, often have all sorts of information, such as famous quotes from various dates, etc. Why not seasonal estimates too?
 
Isaac Asimov proposed his World Season Calendar, which incorporated the current official seasons, starting on the solstices and equinoxes--the season boundaries that are so commonly stated in the media. And why not? Why wait to hear it on tv, when you can have it shown on the calendar? And I have merely improved Asimov's seasonal boundaries to try for a better match to the perceived seasons.
 
Either the calendar seasons could have day-numbering, without months, as Asimov's did, or the calendar seasons could be divided into months. I'd name the months for their place in a season, so that South (a suggested international name for the extreme south-declination season) would have the months "SouthI, SouthII, SouthIII, and SouthIV.
 
Evidently some here would oppose any adoption of a seasonal calendar. I'm not trying to convince those particular individuals. I'm merely answering them, for the benefit of anyone else who might read my proposal, and the objections from anti-seasonal list members, and my (now concluded) replies to the objections that they have posted.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Karl
 
10(09(09 till noon
 
 
 


From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
Sent: 01 June 2009 21:08
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Roman bum-rap
 

Victor said:
 
We're going in circles, so I'm going to leave this discussion.

I comment:
 
Correct. Going in circles because Victor was repeating the same objections or questions, &/or asking me for things that I'd already said. My answers to Victors questions and objections have been the same each time that Victor expressed those questions or objections.
 
Additionally, in his letter below, there were a number of instances where it wasn't at all clear what he meant. Without knowing what he meant, it wasn't possible to give an answer.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 

 

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:32 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF  wrote:
Victor--


You wrote:

> Maybe I'm still having trouble understanding what you're after.
I reply:

Then I'll say it again: What should a calendar be based on, and its year-divisions named for, if not the natural year, and its seasons. Therefore, I prefer that a new calendar explicitly refer to the seasons, even if it can't perfectly match them everywhere. And, more than that, I also prefer that the calendar's month-system match the seasons as well as possible. That's why I propose the Subjective Seasonal calendar. I propose it with slightly different month systems for fixed and nonfixed versions.

I don't specify a leapyear system for the nonfixed version, but the Gregorian leapyear system is adequate for that. A symmetrical leapyear system would be better still, but I don't make an issue of that. For the fixed version, I suggest leapweeks, applied so as to minimize the calendar's maximum drift with respect to the tropical year.

You continued:


> Perhaps it's only the alignment of the start of the year that you have
> a problem with.
I reply:

I have no idea where you got that. I certainly never said it.

I've spoken of the desirability of a calendar explicitly referring to the seasons, and I've compared how well different month-systems match our perception of the seasons.

You continued:


If so, I see no great value in doing so
I reply:

Doing what?? Before that statement in your message, you hadn't referred to doing anything.


You continue:


, but we've
> been over that already.
I reply:

Probably, whatever "that" is.

You continue:


The Roman month system seems perfectly
> suitable to what you want.
Well, let's see:

Does it explicitly refer to the seasons? can its months be arranged in groupings that match the seasons anything like as well as the Subjective Seasonal Calendar?

(I've admitted that 5 of my 6 proposals don't match the perceived seasons better than quarters of the Roman month system)


And is it as free of arbitrariness as most calendar reform proposals are?

Evidentally your impression of what I want differs considerably from what I've been saying that I want.

You continued:


 There are twelve months that are easily
> divided into roughly equal quarters.
I reply:

Yes, and that's sufficient if we don't mind assuming equal seasons. But the seasons that we perceive, as described by authors over the centuries, are not equal in length.

Since 5 of my proposals use quarters to represent seasons, I can't say that quarters are entirely inadequate. I do say that they're distinctly suboptimal. The use of quarters to represent seasons is greatly improved-upon by the Subjective Seasonal Calendar.

You continued:


Anything beyond that requires
> more than a month system -- a calendar.
I reply:

I make no issue about leapyear systems. For fixed calendars, I prefer leapweeks, but there hasn't been any dispute here about leapweeks vs blank-days, at least no since my arrival.

You continued:


>
> By the way, a calendar is just a way to name days. Nearly all
> calendars thus are dependent upon a specific leap year scheme.
> Otherwise, naming a day would not be well defined or ambiguous.
I reply:

Have I said or implied otherwise? I accept the Gregorian leapyear system for nonfixed calendars. Though it doesn't minimize jitter, its jitter isn't excessive.

And no, I have never implied that we shouldn't have a "leap year scheme". I've spoken of several that would be good. So it isn't entirely clear why you keep going back to the subject of leapyear schemes.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009
 





Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check it out.






Scanned by iCritical.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009