Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE)

View: New views

7 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Peter Meyer-3 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Dear List Members, Karl entitled this thread "A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era'(CE)", which is not quite accurate. I am not proposing anything about an era but rather something about a calendar date notation. Nowhere (AFAICR) do I speak of a "Common Era", only of the "Common Era Calendar". This is a proposal in the field of technical chronology. Those unfamiliar with this term (and others) might care to read the late Lance Latham's article on this subject at http://www.hermetic.ch/compsci/techchron.htm in which he distinguishes between technical" chronology and "historical" chronology. My Julian-Gregorian Date Calculator is coming along nicely and will be available to members soon. It will be useful to historical chronologists as well as technical chronologists. I propose to use 'JC' as a designator only for dates in the proleptic Julian Calendar with astronomical year numbering. Those favoring the "religiously neutral" and "politically correct" use of CE/BCE seem mostly seem to consider only the proleptic Gregorian Calendar, but their preference for CE/BCE must surely also apply to the proleptic Julian Calendar. Consequently a 'CE/BCE' date may be a date either in the proleptic Gregorian Calendar or in the proleptic Julian Calendar, so the date designator 'CE/BCE' does not identify the calendar used, except that (if my proposal is accepted) a 'CE' date with a zero or negative year is always a date in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. A 'JC' date is always a date in the proleptic Julian calendar. The Common Era Calendar (CE) is a type of proleptic Gregorian Calendar. The system of dates with designator 'JC' has no short name; it is a type of proleptic Julian Calendar. Regards, Peter Meyer "Calendar Studies" at http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud.htm
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Mark J. Reed :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Why not use "GC" by analogy with "JC" and avoid overloading the implications of "CE"? On Friday, October 9, 2009, Peter Meyer <pm@...> wrote: > Dear List Members, > > Karl entitled this thread "A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era'(CE)", > which is not quite accurate. I am not proposing anything about > an era but rather something about a calendar date notation. > Nowhere (AFAICR) do I speak of a "Common Era", only of the > "Common Era Calendar". > > This is a proposal in the field of technical chronology. > Those unfamiliar with this term (and others) might care to > read the late Lance Latham's article on this subject at > http://www.hermetic.ch/compsci/techchron.htm > in which he distinguishes between technical" chronology > and "historical" chronology. > > My Julian-Gregorian Date Calculator is coming along nicely > and will be available to members soon. It will be useful > to historical chronologists as well as technical chronologists. > I propose to use 'JC' as a designator only for dates in the > proleptic Julian Calendar with astronomical year numbering. > > Those favoring the "religiously neutral" and "politically > correct" use of CE/BCE seem mostly seem to consider only > the proleptic Gregorian Calendar, but their preference for > CE/BCE must surely also apply to the proleptic Julian Calendar. > > Consequently a 'CE/BCE' date may be a date either in the > proleptic Gregorian Calendar or in the proleptic Julian Calendar, > so the date designator 'CE/BCE' does not identify the calendar > used, except that (if my proposal is accepted) a 'CE' date > with a zero or negative year is always a date in the proleptic > Gregorian calendar. A 'JC' date is always a date in the > proleptic Julian calendar. > > The Common Era Calendar (CE) is a type of proleptic Gregorian > Calendar. The system of dates with designator 'JC' has > no short name; it is a type of proleptic Julian Calendar. > > Regards, > Peter Meyer > "Calendar Studies" at http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud.htm > > -- Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Amos Shapir :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. We can do away with the AD/BC, CE/BCE confusion and negative year numbers by just adding 10000 to year numbers; this way, 1066 AD becomes 11066, and 586 BC becomes 9415 (for BC numbers subtract each digit from 9, then add 2 to the result). I have found this method valuable when trying to figure out BC dates, especially about the first century BC/AD. (This seems so simple it must have been thought of before, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere). Amos Shapir Keep your friends updated— even when you’re not signed in.
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Tom Peters-6 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Op 10-okt-2009, om 0:53 heeft Amos Shapir het volgende geschreven: > We can do away with the AD/BC, CE/BCE confusion and negative year > numbers by just adding 10000 to year numbers; this way, 1066 AD > becomes 11066, and 586 BC becomes 9415 (for BC numbers subtract > each digit from 9, then add 2 to the result). I have found this > method valuable when trying to figure out BC dates, especially > about the first century BC/AD. > > (This seems so simple it must have been thought of before, but I > haven't seen it mentioned anywhere). Duh, then why not use the Anno Mundi count or the Jewish creation era? And archeologists regularly dig up something even older. Tree-ring records already go down to 8000 years or so, and it is conceivable they will break the 10000 BC limit sometime in the future. -- Tom Peters
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Sepp Rothwangl :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Why not subtract 2000 from the AD years? Then we would be here and now! Year 2000 would be year zero then. Many write instead of 2009 already 09. servus sepp Am 10.10.2009 um 00:53 schrieb Amos Shapir: We can do away with the AD/BC, CE/BCE confusion and negative year numbers by just adding 10000 to year numbers; this way, 1066 AD becomes 11066, and 586 BC becomes 9415 (for BC numbers subtract each digit from 9, then add 2 to the result). I have found this method valuable when trying to figure out BC dates, especially about the first century BC/AD. (This seems so simple it must have been thought of before, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere). Amos Shapir Keep your friends updated— even when you’re not signed in.
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Peter Meyer-3 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Dear CALNDR-L members, Victor Engel said: >For disambiguation, day of week could be appended. For example, >1600-01-06, Thursday, is unambiguous, even though Gregorian >or Julian is not specified. Dates thus specified would be ambiguous >only for periods of time when the drift between Gregorian and Julian >is exactly a multiple of 7 days. No such day occurred when both >calendars were in use. Many thanks to Victor for this suggestion. I plan to incorporate it into my Julian-Gregorian Date Calculator, so that a date can be input with a specification of weekday without a specification of calendar. (So the release will be delayed a bit.) Amos Shapir said: >We can do away with the AD/BC, CE/BCE confusion and negative year >numbers by just adding 10000 to year numbers There is a little-known calendar which takes the same approach. The Annus Novus Decimal Calendar http://www.atlantium.org/calendaran.html "The Annus Novus year-numbering convention is derived from the approximate date for the worldwide end of the Pleistocene Era and the last Ice Age, and the beginning of the Holocene." Year 2000 Gregorian is year 10519 in this calendar. Tom Peters said: >But if you want a single continuous calendar, then it should be >Julian, not Gregorian. In that case more actual historic dates will >be correct (8 AD to 1582 AD) than Gregorian (1917..) for a long time. That's true. >The Julian calendar may not follow the mean tropical year nor >mean spring aequinox year nor sidereal year very accurately, but >neither does the Gregorian year I believe the Gregorian year accords quite well with the vernal equinox year during 1600-3000 CE. See Figure 1 in Simon Cassidy's article at http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/cassidy/shspk1zc.pdf That the Julian Calendar does not accord well with the vernal equinox year means that over the long term Earth's seasons will move through an entire year (though this will take a long time). That might or might not be considered a flaw in the calendar. Regards, Peter Meyer "Calendar Software" at http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_sw.htm
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Amos Shapir :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. This would make all year numbers negative; the +10K proposal is meant to make all year numbers positive, within the range in which exact dates are known with precision of at least a year or so. (As far as I know no known date is known to such precision earlier than 6000 BC). All other proposals (e.g. Anno Domini or Anno Novis) are much harder to convert to and from CE/AD. The +10K proposal is not meant to deal with years before 10000 BC; those who deal with such time scales usually do not need calendars anyway. Amos Shapir Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:32:18 +0200 From: calendersign@... Subject: Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) To: CALNDR-L@... Why not subtract 2000 from the AD years? Then we would be here and now! Year 2000 would be year zero then. Many write instead of 2009 already 09. servus sepp Am 10.10.2009 um 00:53 schrieb Amos Shapir: We can do away with the AD/BC, CE/BCE confusion and negative year numbers by just adding 10000 to year numbers; this way, 1066 AD becomes 11066, and 586 BC becomes 9415 (for BC numbers subtract each digit from 9, then add 2 to the result). I have found this method valuable when trying to figure out BC dates, especially about the first century BC/AD. (This seems so simple it must have been thought of before, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere). Amos Shapir Keep your friends updated— even when you’re not signed in. Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook.

	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Peter Meyer-3 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Dear List Members, Karl entitled this thread "A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era'(CE)", which is not quite accurate. I am not proposing anything about an era but rather something about a calendar date notation. Nowhere (AFAICR) do I speak of a "Common Era", only of the "Common Era Calendar". This is a proposal in the field of technical chronology. Those unfamiliar with this term (and others) might care to read the late Lance Latham's article on this subject at http://www.hermetic.ch/compsci/techchron.htm in which he distinguishes between technical" chronology and "historical" chronology. My Julian-Gregorian Date Calculator is coming along nicely and will be available to members soon. It will be useful to historical chronologists as well as technical chronologists. I propose to use 'JC' as a designator only for dates in the proleptic Julian Calendar with astronomical year numbering. Those favoring the "religiously neutral" and "politically correct" use of CE/BCE seem mostly seem to consider only the proleptic Gregorian Calendar, but their preference for CE/BCE must surely also apply to the proleptic Julian Calendar. Consequently a 'CE/BCE' date may be a date either in the proleptic Gregorian Calendar or in the proleptic Julian Calendar, so the date designator 'CE/BCE' does not identify the calendar used, except that (if my proposal is accepted) a 'CE' date with a zero or negative year is always a date in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. A 'JC' date is always a date in the proleptic Julian calendar. The Common Era Calendar (CE) is a type of proleptic Gregorian Calendar. The system of dates with designator 'JC' has no short name; it is a type of proleptic Julian Calendar. Regards, Peter Meyer "Calendar Studies" at http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud.htm
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Mark J. Reed :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Why not use "GC" by analogy with "JC" and avoid overloading the implications of "CE"? On Friday, October 9, 2009, Peter Meyer <pm@...> wrote: > Dear List Members, > > Karl entitled this thread "A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era'(CE)", > which is not quite accurate. I am not proposing anything about > an era but rather something about a calendar date notation. > Nowhere (AFAICR) do I speak of a "Common Era", only of the > "Common Era Calendar". > > This is a proposal in the field of technical chronology. > Those unfamiliar with this term (and others) might care to > read the late Lance Latham's article on this subject at > http://www.hermetic.ch/compsci/techchron.htm > in which he distinguishes between technical" chronology > and "historical" chronology. > > My Julian-Gregorian Date Calculator is coming along nicely > and will be available to members soon. It will be useful > to historical chronologists as well as technical chronologists. > I propose to use 'JC' as a designator only for dates in the > proleptic Julian Calendar with astronomical year numbering. > > Those favoring the "religiously neutral" and "politically > correct" use of CE/BCE seem mostly seem to consider only > the proleptic Gregorian Calendar, but their preference for > CE/BCE must surely also apply to the proleptic Julian Calendar. > > Consequently a 'CE/BCE' date may be a date either in the > proleptic Gregorian Calendar or in the proleptic Julian Calendar, > so the date designator 'CE/BCE' does not identify the calendar > used, except that (if my proposal is accepted) a 'CE' date > with a zero or negative year is always a date in the proleptic > Gregorian calendar. A 'JC' date is always a date in the > proleptic Julian calendar. > > The Common Era Calendar (CE) is a type of proleptic Gregorian > Calendar. The system of dates with designator 'JC' has > no short name; it is a type of proleptic Julian Calendar. > > Regards, > Peter Meyer > "Calendar Studies" at http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud.htm > > -- Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Amos Shapir :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. We can do away with the AD/BC, CE/BCE confusion and negative year numbers by just adding 10000 to year numbers; this way, 1066 AD becomes 11066, and 586 BC becomes 9415 (for BC numbers subtract each digit from 9, then add 2 to the result). I have found this method valuable when trying to figure out BC dates, especially about the first century BC/AD. (This seems so simple it must have been thought of before, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere). Amos Shapir Keep your friends updated— even when you’re not signed in.
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Tom Peters-6 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Op 10-okt-2009, om 0:53 heeft Amos Shapir het volgende geschreven: > We can do away with the AD/BC, CE/BCE confusion and negative year > numbers by just adding 10000 to year numbers; this way, 1066 AD > becomes 11066, and 586 BC becomes 9415 (for BC numbers subtract > each digit from 9, then add 2 to the result). I have found this > method valuable when trying to figure out BC dates, especially > about the first century BC/AD. > > (This seems so simple it must have been thought of before, but I > haven't seen it mentioned anywhere). Duh, then why not use the Anno Mundi count or the Jewish creation era? And archeologists regularly dig up something even older. Tree-ring records already go down to 8000 years or so, and it is conceivable they will break the 10000 BC limit sometime in the future. -- Tom Peters
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Sepp Rothwangl :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Why not subtract 2000 from the AD years? Then we would be here and now! Year 2000 would be year zero then. Many write instead of 2009 already 09. servus sepp Am 10.10.2009 um 00:53 schrieb Amos Shapir: We can do away with the AD/BC, CE/BCE confusion and negative year numbers by just adding 10000 to year numbers; this way, 1066 AD becomes 11066, and 586 BC becomes 9415 (for BC numbers subtract each digit from 9, then add 2 to the result). I have found this method valuable when trying to figure out BC dates, especially about the first century BC/AD. (This seems so simple it must have been thought of before, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere). Amos Shapir Keep your friends updated— even when you’re not signed in.
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Peter Meyer-3 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Dear CALNDR-L members, Victor Engel said: >For disambiguation, day of week could be appended. For example, >1600-01-06, Thursday, is unambiguous, even though Gregorian >or Julian is not specified. Dates thus specified would be ambiguous >only for periods of time when the drift between Gregorian and Julian >is exactly a multiple of 7 days. No such day occurred when both >calendars were in use. Many thanks to Victor for this suggestion. I plan to incorporate it into my Julian-Gregorian Date Calculator, so that a date can be input with a specification of weekday without a specification of calendar. (So the release will be delayed a bit.) Amos Shapir said: >We can do away with the AD/BC, CE/BCE confusion and negative year >numbers by just adding 10000 to year numbers There is a little-known calendar which takes the same approach. The Annus Novus Decimal Calendar http://www.atlantium.org/calendaran.html "The Annus Novus year-numbering convention is derived from the approximate date for the worldwide end of the Pleistocene Era and the last Ice Age, and the beginning of the Holocene." Year 2000 Gregorian is year 10519 in this calendar. Tom Peters said: >But if you want a single continuous calendar, then it should be >Julian, not Gregorian. In that case more actual historic dates will >be correct (8 AD to 1582 AD) than Gregorian (1917..) for a long time. That's true. >The Julian calendar may not follow the mean tropical year nor >mean spring aequinox year nor sidereal year very accurately, but >neither does the Gregorian year I believe the Gregorian year accords quite well with the vernal equinox year during 1600-3000 CE. See Figure 1 in Simon Cassidy's article at http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/cassidy/shspk1zc.pdf That the Julian Calendar does not accord well with the vernal equinox year means that over the long term Earth's seasons will move through an entire year (though this will take a long time). That might or might not be considered a flaw in the calendar. Regards, Peter Meyer "Calendar Software" at http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_sw.htm
	Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) by Amos Shapir :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. This would make all year numbers negative; the +10K proposal is meant to make all year numbers positive, within the range in which exact dates are known with precision of at least a year or so. (As far as I know no known date is known to such precision earlier than 6000 BC). All other proposals (e.g. Anno Domini or Anno Novis) are much harder to convert to and from CE/AD. The +10K proposal is not meant to deal with years before 10000 BC; those who deal with such time scales usually do not need calendars anyway. Amos Shapir Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:32:18 +0200 From: calendersign@... Subject: Re: A Proposed Usage of 'Common Era Calendar' (CE) To: CALNDR-L@... Why not subtract 2000 from the AD years? Then we would be here and now! Year 2000 would be year zero then. Many write instead of 2009 already 09. servus sepp Am 10.10.2009 um 00:53 schrieb Amos Shapir: We can do away with the AD/BC, CE/BCE confusion and negative year numbers by just adding 10000 to year numbers; this way, 1066 AD becomes 11066, and 586 BC becomes 9415 (for BC numbers subtract each digit from 9, then add 2 to the result). I have found this method valuable when trying to figure out BC dates, especially about the first century BC/AD. (This seems so simple it must have been thought of before, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere). Amos Shapir Keep your friends updated— even when you’re not signed in. Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook.