Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma
|
View:
New views
15 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma
by Philip DeRosa
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
It should appear obvious to everyone that
Ypsing is very keen on calendar reform and like the rest of us on the
List feels strongly about his ideas and wants to share them with us. His
English is certainly better than my Mandarin but in spite of his efforts it
often is difficult to precisely understand the points that he makes. May I
suggest he enlist the aid of someone to help him better translate
his thoughts as we are interested in what he has to say. In the meantime I
would suggest to Mike that in spite of his sometime frustation he exercize a
little more patience.
Phil De
Rosa WISH - That our great
grandchildren will be able to plan their daily lives using a simpler,
common, and universal calendar causing the Lists demise.
|
|
|
Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma
by zengyiping
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Thank you for your suggestion for me. I can't understand every post of our List very well also. For instance, I don't very understand last sentence in your last post : "causing the List demise". May be that your great grand children want use a new simple world calendar. Isn't it? Of course, I want all members of our List share my ideas with me. But I can't clearly describe them using English. If you can read Madarin ,I would write with it next time. The defferences of view points beetween Mite and me are three points: 1. I consider that his start of North season Dec 1st is a random date. Because it is related random new year's day of Gregorian. I consider that a world seasonal calendar can't be based on a random season's start. 2. I consider that Mike's season's timelag is a local timelag and isn't a global timelag. So his subjective calendar can't be a World calendar. 3. A leap week calendar has big drift of date longitude(may be to 7 days which more bigger than 2 days) which is harmful to agreculture. My main view point for calendar reform is following: 1. A solar calendar must has two functions:counting date and showing seasons. 2. A world calendar must be based on astronomical seasons, because thermal seasons always has local character which can't make a world calendar. But astronomical seasons are global which can be used for making a world calendar showing seasons. 3. A world calendar must be a leap day calendar,because its drift of date less than 2 days which benifit agreculture. 4. A world calendar no need include unite week system,because counting date no need weeks and year-month system is sufficient. 5. World calendar maut has simplest frame. 6. Improving leap rule may disscuse without frame reform. The Natural World Proposal is my calendar proposal. It is as follow: 1.New year Feb 4(fixed Solar Term Spring begining) 2.4 Seasons 1-1,4-1,7-1, 10-1 are fixed Solar Term Spring Begining,Summer Begining,Autumn Begining,Winter Beginging. 3.Months 1~6 month(30 days) year middle 5 days or 6 days for leap year 7~12 month(30 days) 4.leap rule the same as Gregorian Is this a simler,common,and universal calendar? What question do you have? Please ask me. Yiping Zeng 21/Aug/2009 曾一平 21日/8月/2009年 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:48:59 -0700 From: pderosa7@... Subject: Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma To: CALNDR-L@... It should appear obvious to everyone that
Ypsing is very keen on calendar reform and like the rest of us on the
List feels strongly about his ideas and wants to share them with us. His
English is certainly better than my Mandarin but in spite of his efforts it
often is difficult to precisely understand the points that he makes. May I
suggest he enlist the aid of someone to help him better translate
his thoughts as we are interested in what he has to say. In the meantime I
would suggest to Mike that in spite of his sometime frustation he exercize a
little more patience.
Phil De
Rosa WISH - That our great
grandchildren will be able to plan their daily lives using a simpler,
common, and universal calendar causing the Lists demise.
您可以借助 Windows Live 整理、编辑和 共享您的照片。 |
|
|
Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma
by RDoug
::
Rate this Message:
|
|
|
Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma
by Irv Bromberg
::
Rate this Message:
|
|
|
Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma
by MIKE OSSIPOFF
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Phil and Calendar People, Yes, thank you for letting me know that I've been showing a bit too much anger or impatience. I know what that can do to Internet discussion, and the last thing that I want is to be a flamewar-insult type of debater. Knowing how different Mandarin and English are, I'm very impressed by the fact that Yiping writes in English at all. Usually I know what he means. The only exception, or the only important exception, was when he first expressed his "Displaced Gregorian Year" argument. I was probably a bit rude when I, at first, didn't understand it, and, if so, then I apologize to all (for that and any other "flamewar" language). Later I realized what Yiping's point was, with the displaced Gregorian Calendar, and so I answered his objection. Other than my initial failure to understand that objection, my exasperation with Yiping results not from language misunderstanding, but rather from the fact that [it seems to me that] Yiping sometimes posts his arguments and criticisms too hastily, without considering how they're vulnerable to rebuttal, and, in a recent instance, has moved me to angry reply by saying that I said something wrong, without saying what I said wrong. Ok, that sounds childish, but I like to hear what I'm wrong about. Mike Ossipoff Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. Find out more. |
|
|
Starting date, init d, date-conversion
by MIKE OSSIPOFF
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
I understand that there are advantages for a starting date in retroactive-Gregorian 1 A.D., and for having leapweek in North. As I was saying, those are things that I don't understand, and I feel that if I tried to implement what I don't understand, I'd only botch it, not really knowing what I'm doing. Therefore, at this point, I'm posting my own initial proposal, as regards starting date and leapweek placement. I understand that, for the calendar's annual displacement with respect to solar ecliptic longitude, the mean tropical year isn't the optimal tropical year to use, and that the lengths of tropical years with respect to variouis ecliptic longitudes can be found at the website that Karl posted. I'll check that website and will accordingly refine my figure for annual calendrical displacement with respect to solar ecliptic longitude. Though I used the 1.24219 figure (based on the 365.242190 day mean tropical year), for the purpose of the date-conversion posted here, I doubt that the difference between that, and the more accurate tropical year for the 32.92723 ecliptic longitude, would change my date conversion. As I said, I'll look up the more accurate figure at the website that Karl posted. For the fixed declination calendar: Starting date (Gregorian date for the calendar's first Northward-I/1 New Year's Day): Monday, February 21st, 2000 Initial value of d for that year: -1.23089 Date conversion: Today, August 21, 2009 in the Gregorian Calendar, is Southward-I/5 in the declination calendar. Of course it's always possible that I've made an error, but it seems to me that the above facts are correct. Subsequently, I'll post similar facts for the nonfixed declination calendar, and for the fixed and nonfixed Subjective Seasonal calendar. Nonfixed Subjective Seasonal, likely the least popular, will be last. I'll post the facts about the nonfixed declination calendar and the fixed Subjective Seasonal Calendar in an order according to which of those two is more unpopular. So: Which do you dislike more?: The nonfixed declination calendar, or the fixed Subjective Seasonal Calendar. Of course I'm posting first the facts about the fixed declination calendar because it seems to me that it is, here, the least unpopular of my proposals. I understand some here don't like Subjective Seasonal. That's why I've posted my declination calendar proposal. Since I already know that some completely oppose Subjective Seasonal, or any terrestrial-seasonal calendar, I'd like to find out if those people also oppose the fixed declination calendar, and what objections, if any, they have to it. Mike Ossipoff Mike Ossipoff Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now. |
|
|
Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma
by zengyiping
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Thanks for your replies. I'll correct some wrong words in my last post proposal as follow: 1. New year... 1-1,fixed Solar Term Spring beginning(Feb 4th of Gregorian). 2. 4 Seasons...1-1,4-1,7-1,10-1,fixed Solar Terms four seasons beginning (Feb 4th,May 4th or 5th in leap year,Aug 8th,Nov 6th of Gregorian). 3. Months 1~6 month(30 days). year middle 5 days or 6 days for leap year. 7~12 month(30 days). 4. leap rule the same as Gregorian. Irv wrote: The traditional Chinese lunisolar calendar has +/- 15 days of solstice wobble, has that been harmful for Chinese agriculture? Yiping reply: This is an other thing. Chinese peasants cultivate according to 24 Solar Terms and not according to lunnar dates. Otherwise ,lunar dates would seriously harmuful for Chinese agriculture. Irv wrote: If the idea is to better correspond to the two astronomically longer seasons then I would suggest placing the 5 or 6 days earlier in the year for present era use, for example because presently aphelion is about 105 days = 3+1/2 months after the northward equinox. Consider placing those days between the 4th and 5th months, eventually to be shifted to between the 5th and 6th month when aphelion has advanced far enough later in the calendar year. I reply: This is a good suggestion. My proposal first version was just as it. But its symmetrical form of two half year would be breaken. So I at last select the present project. Irv wrote: Nevertheless, calendar arithmetic is appreciably simpler if the leap day (or leap week or leap month) is at the end of the year rather than any other place in the calendar year, and the calendar structure is permanently fixed. Yiping reply: I don't want add one day to winter. Irv wrote: Yiping's proposed structure is the same as the French Revolutionary calendar (ignoring its 10-day weeks), except that the French intended to start the year at the southward equinox, and their "Revolutionary Days" came at the end of year. Yiping reply: Solar calendar has three essential properties:year start,division of months and leap rule. The French Revolutionary calendar is differnt with my Natural World Calendar in the properties. So I think that they can't be called the same calendars. Moreover ,the French Revolutionary calendar neglect summer's longer length. Irv wrote: Many people would like the simple structure of 30 equal months, but the extra 5 or 6 days will come to be regarded as a 13th mini-month. In numeric date format it could be numbered 13, or it could be numbered "zero" like the Bahai calendar. Yiping reply: This is a positive suggestion. If most people agree ,I can agree too. Yiping Zeng 22/Aug/2009 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:48:59 -0700 From: pderosa7@... Subject: Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma To: CALNDR-L@... It should appear obvious to everyone that
Ypsing is very keen on calendar reform and like the rest of us on the
List feels strongly about his ideas and wants to share them with us. His
English is certainly better than my Mandarin but in spite of his efforts it
often is difficult to precisely understand the points that he makes. May I
suggest he enlist the aid of someone to help him better translate
his thoughts as we are interested in what he has to say. In the meantime I
would suggest to Mike that in spite of his sometime frustation he exercize a
little more patience.
Phil De
Rosa WISH - That our great
grandchildren will be able to plan their daily lives using a simpler,
common, and universal calendar causing the Lists demise.
聊天+搜索+邮箱 想要轻松出游,手机MSN帮你搞定! 立刻下载！ |
|
|
Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma
by MIKE OSSIPOFF
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Yiping, You wrote: view points beetween Mite and me are three points: 1. I consider that his start of North season Dec 1st... I reply: June 1, not Deember 1. Subjective Seasonal's North-I/1 is kept as close as possible, in solar ecliptic longitude, to an average position of Gregorian June 1 during a specified period. You continue: is a random date. Because it is related random new year's day of Gregorian. I reply: Bu shi! You misunderstand. It's related to when people consider it to be summer. That may or may not be influenced by the Gregorian Calendar's month divisions, as I've pointed out to you. But that's irrelevant anyway, because Subjective Seasonal is fundamentally based on when people consider summer to begin, regardless of why they perceive that. I get that you prefer a longitude calendar based on equal divisions of ecliptic longitude. Fine. That's why your proposal isn't the same as mine. And that's alright, that your proposal and your preference aren't the same as mine. The question, though, is whether _you_ can overcome your prejudices enough to refrain from making pseudoscientific claims about a proposal that you don't happen to support. Don't support it then, but don't speak nonsense about it either. You continued: 2. I consider that Mike's season's timelag is a local timelag and isn't a global timelag. I reply: As I've said so many times, 1.25 months is the typical midrange seasonal timelag in the north and south temperate regions. It's unusual for the actual seaonal timelag in those regions to differ from that by more than 1/2 of a month. By the way, the 1.25 month figure is very accurate in your country of residence too. You continue: So his subjective calendar can't be a World calendar. I reply: You mean it can't be a world calendar supported by you. We get that and you can stop saying it at any time you're ready to. You continued: 3. A leap week calendar has big drift of date longitude(may be to 7 days which more bigger than 2 days) which is harmful to agreculture. I reply: Irv answered that already. I'll just add that the variation in average temperatures over the wobble of a leapweek calendar is negligible compared to the natural daily temperature variation, and the variation of its average from year to year for a particular date. You continue: My main view point for calendar reform is following: 1. A solar calendar must has two functions:counting date and showing seasons. I reply: The week is considered an important and necessary feature of calendars. Any proposal for a week-less calendar has no chance of acceptance. You continue: 2. A world calendar must be based on astronomical seasons, because thermal seasons always has local character which can't make a world calendar. I reply: As I said, the usual 1/2 month maximum deviation, iin the temperate zones, from Subjective Seasonal's 1.25 month lag isn't, for me, an important problem for a calendar. But it's ultimately a matter of subjective opinion. Some others have said what you say, and I've heard what you say. We've both said what we've wanted to say about that, and there' s no need to continue about it, is there. Because some don't like Subjective Seasonal, or any terrestrial seasonal calendar, I've also proposed a declination calendar. I've suggested that people who oppose Subjective Seasonal because they don't like a terrestrial seasonal calendar comment on how they feel about a declination calendar. The declination calendar is a type of astronomical seasonal calendar. I know that you prefer a calendar to be based on longitude instead of declination. But you should understand that that, too, is an individual subjective preference. Of course your opinions are welcome. But don't wrap yourself in science and package your personal preferences as scientific absolutes. That's pseudoscience. Mike Ossipoff Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. Try BingT now. |
|
|
Leapweek in South-IV
by MIKE OSSIPOFF
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
I forgot to say when, in my declination calendar proposal, leapweek is. Leapweek is in the month of South-IV. That's the last month of the year. I understand that there are advantages to having leapweek in North, but my proposal, in its current form, must reflect only what I understand. Of course I would have no objection to moving leapweek to North, and I'd have no objection to moving the starting date to retroactive-Gregorian 1 A.D., if those changes would be advantageous. Such changes should be done only by someone who understands the reason for them. Mike Ossipoff Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now. |
|
|
Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma
by scott colmes
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
(From a rare poster but always reader) Per your WISH -- is the calendar list only about calendar reform? Isn't it about anything related to calendars-- astronomy, calculations, history, anthropology, etc? Also, if the current civil calendar is replaced by one of the proposals, will all the people who passionately promote pet personal projects all suddenly be satisfied (thus ceasing to post and leading to the list's demise)? Best to all, Scott Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:48:59 -0700 From: pderosa7@... Subject: Re: Mike's and Ypsing's dilemma To: CALNDR-L@... It should appear obvious to everyone that Ypsing is very keen on calendar reform and like the rest of us on the List feels strongly about his ideas and wants to share them with us. His English is certainly better than my Mandarin but in spite of his efforts it often is difficult to precisely understand the points that he makes. May I suggest he enlist the aid of someone to help him better translate his thoughts as we are interested in what he has to say. In the meantime I would suggest to Mike that in spite of his sometime frustation he exercize a little more patience.
Phil De Rosa WISH - That our great grandchildren will be able to plan their daily lives using a simpler, common, and universal calendar causing the Lists demise. Share your memories online with anyone you want anyone you want. |
|
|
Re: Starting date, init d, date-conversion
by Karl Palmen
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Mike and Calendar People Assuming d is in range -3.49999 to +3.50000 and is decremented
by 1.24219 each year while in range, the accumulator of year 1999 is
100,000*(3.5-(-1.23089)) = 473,089. So a year Y is a leap year if and only if (124,219*(Y-1999) + 473,089) mod 700,000 < 124,219 Noting that 1999*124,219 mod 700,000 = 531,781 we get (124,219*Y + 641,308) mod 700,000 < 124,219. This gives d for year 1 = -2.91308. The start date for year 1
must be Monday 19th February in the proleptic Gregorian calendar,
which is 21st February in the Julian calendar and JDN 1,721,475. I reckon accumulators and new years as follows: 1999: 473,089 1999-02-22 2000: 597,308 2000-02-21 2001: 021,527 2001-02-19 leap year 2002: 145,746 2002-02-25 2003: 269,965 2003-02-24 2004: 394,184 2004-02-23 2005: 518,403 2005-02-21 2006: 642,622 2006-02-20 2007: 066,841 2007-02-19 leap year 2008: 191,060 2008-02-25 2009: 315,279 2009-02-23 2010: 439,498 2010-02-22 2011: 563,717 2011-02-21 2012: 687,936 2012-02-20 2013: 112,155 2013-02-18 leap year 2014: 236,374 2014-02-24 2015: 360,593 2015-02-23 The accumulator is 100,000 times how far next year’s d
falls short of 3.5 (it’s assumed maximum value). I have assumed that d must lie in the range of -3.49999 and 3.5.
I previously thought it was 0.0 to 6.99999 until as saw the negative value. If the subjective seasonal calendar were used alongside it, it
should have exactly the same leap year rule in order to make conversion between
the two easy. This would suggest having the subjective seasonal calendar months
either five or six weeks later than the corresponding months of the declination
calendar. More comments to come. From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion
List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF Dear Calendar People, I have proposed (above) an
equivalent rule that produces exactly the same new year days.
The precision of 1.24219 is
excessive. 1.2422 would do. There’d be at most one years differing within
the few thousand years the calendar is accurate. Calculation would become
simpler because there’d be one less digit.
I reckon Northward-I to begin
on February 23rd and so August 21st be South-IV/5, which
is a week earlier. This suggests that my assumption of the range of d and that
it is decremented by 1.24219 may be incorrect.
It would have helped to show
your calculations. In so doing you’d demonstrate the working of the
calendar rules, so helping others to understand the calendar rules.
The non-fixed could be
defined so that each year of the fixed begins on the nearest Monday to the new
year of the fixed. If the non-fixed have each
month with 4 or 5 weeks, except the last, then each month of the fixed could
begin on the nearest Monday to the non-fixed month and each non-fixed month
would begin on the same day of week within each year (i.e. it is semi-fixed).
10(12(13 --
|
|
|
Re: Starting date, init d, date-conversion
by Karl Palmen
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Mike and Calendar People I went back to the note that Mike sent on 28th July,
which was tidied by Mike Deckers on 30th July. It said: Leapyear rule: The initial value of d is the "initial d"
determined as described above. If, for any year, d> 7/2 - 1.24219, then that year is
a leapyear. (I've intended to write, here, the better implementing
described by Michael Deckers. If this is different from what Michael Deckers
wrote, then Deckers' rule is what I intend). Immediately when a non-leapyear ends, d + 1.24219 becomes
the new value of d. Immediately when a leapyear ends, d + 1.24219 - 7 becomes
the new value of d. So I was wrong in assuming the d was decremented by 1.24219. It
is in fact incremented. One thing I notice is about Mike’s language is that d is
not written about as though it explicitly belongs to a year. I think it would
be useful to talk about d of a year (e.g. d(2009) for this year’s d). The range of d this thus -3.49999 to 3.5 . I now reckon the new years thus (year, d, accumulator, new
year): 1999: -2.47308 226,910 1999-02-22 2000: -1.23089 351,129 2000-02-21 2001: +0.01130 475,348 2001-02-19 2002: +1.25349 599,567 2002-02-18 2003: +2.49568 023,786 2003-02-17 leap year 2004: -3.26213 148,005 2004-02-23 2005: -2.01994 272,224 2005-02-21 2006: -0.77775 396,443 2006-02-20 2007: +0.46444 520,662 2007-02-19 2008: +1.70663 644,881 2008-02-18 2009: +2.94882 069,100 2009-02-16 leap year 2010: -2.80899 193,319 2010-02-22 2011: -1.56680 317,538 2011-02-21 2012: -0.32461 441,757 2012-02-20 2013: +0.91758 565,976 2013-02-18 2014: +2.15977 690,195 2014-02-17 2015: +3.40196 114,414 2015-02-16 leap year The accumulator of a year is simply next year’s d +
3.49999 then multiplied by 100,000. So Mike’s calculation of the date for 21st
August 2009 is correct. The accumulator for year Y is thus (( 124,219*Y + 289,129) mod 700,000) < 124,219 And a year is a leap year if and only if its accumulator is less
than 124,219. For year 1, d(1) = d(2001) – 0.62 = -0.60870 . The start
date is 0001-02-19 proleptic Gregorian as defined in previous note (below). Karl 10(12(14 From: Palmen, Karl (STFC,RAL,CICT) Dear Mike and Calendar People Assuming d is in range -3.49999 to +3.50000 and is decremented
by 1.24219 each year while in range, the accumulator of year 1999 is
100,000*(3.5-(-1.23089)) = 473,089. So a year Y is a leap year if and only if (124,219*(Y-1999) + 473,089) mod 700,000 <
124,219 Noting that 1999*124,219 mod 700,000 = 531,781 we get (124,219*Y + 641,308) mod 700,000 < 124,219. This gives d for year 1 = -2.91308. The start date for year 1
must be Monday 19th February in the proleptic Gregorian calendar,
which is 21st February in the Julian calendar and JDN 1,721,475. I reckon accumulators and new years as follows: 1999: 473,089 1999-02-22 2000: 597,308 2000-02-21 2001: 021,527 2001-02-19 leap year 2002: 145,746 2002-02-25 2003: 269,965 2003-02-24 2004: 394,184 2004-02-23 2005: 518,403 2005-02-21 2006: 642,622 2006-02-20 2007: 066,841 2007-02-19 leap year 2008: 191,060 2008-02-25 2009: 315,279 2009-02-23 2010: 439,498 2010-02-22 2011: 563,717 2011-02-21 2012: 687,936 2012-02-20 2013: 112,155 2013-02-18 leap year 2014: 236,374 2014-02-24 2015: 360,593 2015-02-23 The accumulator is 100,000 times how far next year’s d
falls short of 3.5 (it’s assumed maximum value). I have assumed that d must lie in the range of -3.49999 and 3.5.
I previously thought it was 0.0 to 6.99999 until as saw the negative value. If the subjective seasonal calendar were used alongside it, it should
have exactly the same leap year rule in order to make conversion between the
two easy. This would suggest having the subjective seasonal calendar months
either five or six weeks later than the corresponding months of the declination
calendar. More comments to come. From: East Carolina University Calendar
discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE
OSSIPOFF Dear Calendar People, I have proposed (above) an
equivalent rule that produces exactly the same new year days.
The precision of 1.24219 is
excessive. 1.2422 would do. There’d be at most one years differing within
the few thousand years the calendar is accurate. Calculation would become
simpler because there’d be one less digit.
I reckon Northward-I to begin
on February 23rd and so August 21st be South-IV/5, which
is a week earlier. This suggests that my assumption of the range of d and that
it is decremented by 1.24219 may be incorrect.
It would have helped to show
your calculations. In so doing you’d demonstrate the working of the
calendar rules, so helping others to understand the calendar rules.
The non-fixed could be defined
so that each year of the fixed begins on the nearest Monday to the new year of
the fixed. If the non-fixed have each
month with 4 or 5 weeks, except the last, then each month of the fixed could
begin on the nearest Monday to the non-fixed month and each non-fixed month
would begin on the same day of week within each year (i.e. it is semi-fixed).
10(12(13 --
|
|
|
Yiping's 30-day Month Calendar RE: Mike's and Yiping's dilemma
by Karl Palmen
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Yiping and Calendar People From: East Carolina University Calendar
discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of zengyiping Dear Robert, Mike, Philip, Irv, Karl and
all calendar people, Months would begin thus
(dates with �C one day earlier in leap year) Feb 4, Mar 6-, Apr 5-, May
5-, Jun 4-, Jul 4- Aug 3- Aug 8, Sep 7, Oct 7, Nov 6,
Dec 6, Jan 5.
One could begin the year 1
month (2 terms) earlier.
The new year could be moved
back 6 months to occur after the 5/6 day short month.
A similar numbering is
sometimes used in the Hebrew Calendar, so the intercalary month (7th
month) is numbered 13.
It reminded me of a
semi-lunar calendar, I thought of, in which the months alternate between 29 and
30 days and include a short month of 11 or 12 days with the northern solstice
in the middle. If I broke the alternation at the southern solstice to provide
two consecutive 30-day months then, I could get the equinoxes occur close to
the start of a month. The months start Jun 27, Jul 26, Aug 25, Sep
23, Oct 23, Nov 21, Dec 21, Jan 20, Feb 18, Mar 20-, Apr 18-, May 18-, Jun 16-
. The months have approximately
the same moon phases throughout the year, but different moon phases in
different years. Karl 10(12(14
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:48:59 -0700 It
should appear obvious to everyone that Ypsing is very keen on calendar
reform and like the rest of us on the List feels strongly about his ideas
and wants to share them with us. His English is certainly better than my
Mandarin but in spite of his efforts it often is difficult to precisely
understand the points that he makes. May I suggest he enlist the aid of someone
to help him better translate his thoughts as we are interested in
what he has to say. In the meantime I would suggest to Mike that in spite of
his sometime frustation he exercize a little more patience. Phil De
Rosa WISH - That our great
grandchildren will be able to plan their daily lives using a simpler,
common, and universal calendar causing the Lists demise. 聊天+搜索+邮箱
想要轻松出游,手机MSN帮你搞定! 立刻下载！ --
|
|
|
Leap years from Starting date, init d, date-conversion
by Karl Palmen
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Mike and Calendar People I calculate more leap years. I note that d goes down 0.78905 over 5 years one of which is a
leap year and d goes up 0.45314 over 6 years one of which is a leap year. The
accumulator goes down 78905 and up 45314 respectively. Over other intervals the changes in d are as follows ( x100,000
for change in accumulator) 11 years of 2 leap years -0.33591 17 years of 3 leap years +0.11723 28 years of 5 leap years -0.21868 45 years of 8 leap years -0.10145 62 years of 11 leap years +0.01578 400 years of 71 leap years +0.124 So given leap years (with d and accumulator) 2003 +2.49568 023,786 2009 +2.94882 069,100 2015 +3.40196 114,414 We can see that the following years are leap years, 2020, 2026 from the 17-year interval. 2032 is not a leap year
because the 17-year interval would take d too far, so 2031 is a leap year
instead, as got by applying the 28-year interval to 2003. Working backwards
with the 17-year interval shows 1986, 1992 and 1998 to be leap years. Also working
forward we get 2037, 2043 and 2048 as leap years. Applying the 62-year interval
would then yield many more leap years (including all from today until 2448). Leap years: 1986, 1992, 1998, 2003, 2009, 2015, 2020, 2026, 2031, 2037, 2043, 2048, 2054, 2060, 2065, 2071, 2077, 2082, 2088, 2093, 2099, 2105 and so on every 62 years until 2448. If we were to use 1.2422 instead of 1.24219 and have d(2000) =
-1.2309 instead of -1.23089 the arithmetic would be a little simpler because
there’d be one less digit and there’d be no decisive loss in
accuracy. If we were to use 77/62 instead of 1.24219 then d(2000) = -76/62
would be the best fit and I expect it to give all the leap years listed. Note
that d(2001) would be +1/62. The arithmetic of d would be best done in units of
1/62. I expect no difference from the 1.24219 calendar until year 2448. If we were to use the Gregorian mean year with 1.2425 then
d(2000) = -1.23 = -492/400 would be the closest fit. Not that d(2001) would be
+5/400 = +0.0125. Also, d(1) would have the same value. Karl 10(12(15 From: Palmen, Karl (STFC,RAL,CICT) Dear Mike and Calendar People I went back to the note that Mike sent on 28th July,
which was tidied by Mike Deckers on 30th July. It said: Leapyear rule: The initial value of d is the "initial d"
determined as described above. If, for any year, d> 7/2 - 1.24219, then that year is
a leapyear. (I've intended to write, here, the better implementing
described by Michael Deckers. If this is different from what Michael Deckers
wrote, then Deckers' rule is what I intend). Immediately when a non-leapyear ends, d + 1.24219 becomes
the new value of d. Immediately when a leapyear ends, d + 1.24219 - 7 becomes
the new value of d. So I was wrong in assuming the d was decremented by 1.24219. It
is in fact incremented. One thing I notice is about Mike’s language is that d is
not written about as though it explicitly belongs to a year. I think it would
be useful to talk about d of a year (e.g. d(2009) for this year’s d). The range of d this thus -3.49999 to 3.5 . I now reckon the new years thus (year, d, accumulator, new
year): 1999: -2.47308 226,910 1999-02-22 2000: -1.23089 351,129 2000-02-21 2001: +0.01130 475,348 2001-02-19 2002: +1.25349 599,567 2002-02-18 2003: +2.49568 023,786 2003-02-17 leap year 2004: -3.26213 148,005 2004-02-23 2005: -2.01994 272,224 2005-02-21 2006: -0.77775 396,443 2006-02-20 2007: +0.46444 520,662 2007-02-19 2008: +1.70663 644,881 2008-02-18 2009: +2.94882 069,100 2009-02-16 leap year 2010: -2.80899 193,319 2010-02-22 2011: -1.56680 317,538 2011-02-21 2012: -0.32461 441,757 2012-02-20 2013: +0.91758 565,976 2013-02-18 2014: +2.15977 690,195 2014-02-17 2015: +3.40196 114,414 2015-02-16 leap year The accumulator of a year is simply next year’s d +
3.49999 then multiplied by 100,000. So Mike’s calculation of the date for 21st
August 2009 is correct. The accumulator for year Y is thus (( 124,219*Y + 289,129) mod 700,000) < 124,219 And a year is a leap year if and only if its accumulator is less
than 124,219. For year 1, d(1) = d(2001) – 0.62 = -0.60870 . The start
date is 0001-02-19 proleptic Gregorian as defined in previous note (below). Karl 10(12(14 From: Palmen, Karl (STFC,RAL,CICT) The start date for year 1 must be Monday 19th
February in the proleptic Gregorian calendar, which is 21st February
in the Julian calendar and JDN 1,721,475. --
|
|
|
Solstice-based 30-day Month Calendar RE: Mike's and Yiping's dilemma
by Karl Palmen
::
Rate this Message:
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Yiping and Calendar People From: East Carolina University Calendar
discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Irv
Bromberg On
2009 Aug 21, at 10:21 , zengyiping wrote:
Irv
replies: The equinox or solstice wobble of a leap week calendar with
smoothly spread leap years is slightly less than +/- 3 days from the target
day. This
can't be harmful for agriculture -- the traditional Chinese lunisolar calendar
has +/- 15 days of solstice wobble, has that been harmful for Chinese
agriculture? The
equinox wobble of the Gregorian leap rule spans a 2.2 day range, rather than
the less than 1 day wobble span of a leap day calendar with smoothly spread
leap rule.
Irv
replies: I
am guessing that Yiping placed them in the middle of the year because that is
presently closer to aphelion than they would be at the end of the year.
However, they would occur near the southward equinox, whereas presently
aphelion is about 10 days after the north solstice. If the idea is to
better correspond to the two astronomically longer seasons then I would suggest
placing the 5 or 6 days earlier in the year for present era use, for example
because presently aphelion is about 105 days = 3+1/2 months after the northward
equinox. Consider placing those days between the 4th and 5th months,
eventually to be shifted to between the 5th and 6th month when aphelion has
advanced far enough later in the calendar year. KARL SAYS: I also note that Yiping likes to place the principal
terms (including equinoxes and solstices) in the middle of the month rather
than the start/end of a month as is the case in India or Iran and also the
French revolutionary calendar. If one were to place the north solstice in the
middle of the five or six extra days, we’d get months starting on Jun 24, Jul 24, Aug 23, Sep 22, Oct 22, Nov 21, Dec 21, Jan 20, Feb 19, Mar 21-, Apr 20-, May 20-, Jun 19- which are close to the principal terms. The minus sign after the
date indicates that the date before applies in a leap year. If you counted the month beginning Jun 24 (which is a traditional
mid-summer’s day) as the first month. Today would be the 17th
day of the third month of the year. The 4th to 12th would coincide with a
French revolutionary calendar month for a French revolutionary year beginning
on September 22. Karl 10(12(20 --
|
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
