Re: Hebrew vs Harappan RE: 1730-year vs. 334-yr cycle RE: 334-year cycle from Revision of Two Gear/Two Peg Lunisolar Device

Brij--
 
It seems to me that, in one of your posts, you suggested discontinuing the 7-day week in the civil calendar. But people wouldn't stand for that. People would never accept a new civil calendar that doens't have the 7-day week. Religious groups rejected the World Calendar because it tampered with the 7-day week. Seven days is close to the time between new moon, first quarter, full moon and last quarter.
 
Likewise the blank day would be rejected, just as it was when the World Calendar was proposed. Use a leap week instead. Its cyclical drift corresponds to only small average temperature differences, negligible in comparison to daily and annual temperature variations.
 
Also, you described a month system that uses the Roman month names, with slight changes in their lengths. Of course, by my definitions, that's a "modest reform", and I personally would want a "thorough reform". I claim that if we change the month-lengths a little, all we achieve is months that no longer seem appropriate to the old Roman month-names. And I claim that if we change the calendar, then we should get rid of arbitrariness as much as possible, and start over with everything, including starting-date and year-divisions, for a calendar that explicitly refers to the natural year.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 

---

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