Calendar Reform Question
xin...@hotmail.com
according to which, a year can be divided into 13 months (each
being exactly 4 weeks) plus 1 or 2 additional days which do not
belong to any month and any week. This way, the relations between
days and dates are fixed and are the same in all months.
I think this is a pretty good idea.
Any comments on or problems with this idea?
--MX
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Louann Miller
>
> Years ago, I read about a proposal for calendar reform
> according to which, a year can be divided into 13 months (each
> being exactly 4 weeks) plus 1 or 2 additional days which do not
> belong to any month and any week. This way, the relations between
> days and dates are fixed and are the same in all months.
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea.
>
> Any comments on or problems with this idea?
It would certainly be a more rational way to run things, but you have to
keep in mind the vast inertia of the human mind. Nobody is seriously
inconvenienced by the old system (most of us get by with the
30-days-hath-September mneumonic) so there wouldn't be an interest group
strongly in favor of it. A few people would object on religious grounds
(the book says the Sabbath is *every* *seven* *days,* gosh-darn ya) and
a much larger group wouldn't be able to get their brains around the idea
of a day that isn't one of the named seven days of the traditional week.
It appears to take a Pope or a Roman emperor to enforce a calendar
reform, and even they have had problems -- look up the history of the
changeover from Julian to Gregorian. If it's possible, I think that this
idea is even more doomed than spelling reform or (posting from USA) the
metric system. In the contest between logic and cultural inertia, it's
rare for logic to even get on the scoreboard. Sorry.
--
Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
Ville Turunen
xin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Years ago, I read about a proposal for calendar reform
> according to which, a year can be divided into 13 months (each
> being exactly 4 weeks) plus 1 or 2 additional days which do not
> belong to any month and any week. This way, the relations between
> days and dates are fixed and are the same in all months.
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea.
>
> Any comments on or problems with this idea?
>
> --MX
The advantages of the reform are insignificant compared to all the trouble
it would cause. Everybody would only get very confused and every calendar,
computer etc would have to be updated. Y2K is a tiny problem compared to
the chaos that the reform would cause.
I think they tried a similar reform in the Soviet Union years ago. It
didn't work and they had to switch back to the old calendar.
-VT
CG Luxford
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 xin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Years ago, I read about a proposal for calendar reform
> according to which, a year can be divided into 13 months (each
> being exactly 4 weeks) plus 1 or 2 additional days which do not
> belong to any month and any week. This way, the relations between
> days and dates are fixed and are the same in all months.
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea.
>
> Any comments on or problems with this idea?
>
There are tremendous logistical problems to do with adjusting calenders
of one sort or another. These could be overvcome with enough forward
planning, the real objection is likely to be one of acceptance from all
those affected. Remember the problems the French had with the
Revolutionary Calender back in the 1790s, and multiply them by several
hundred.
Other than that it's a potentially good idea. Of course it would need to
be culturally neutral, especially if it is to be adopted worldwide.
Chris,
Stephen Tonkin
> Any comments on or problems with this idea?
Chaos would ensue -- just think of all the reprogramming that would be
needed. Almost anything which incorporates a dating mechanism would
become obsolete overnight.
We have a calendar which is accurate to a day per few thousand years; it
works, despite its flaws.
If one looks at "recent" attempts at calendar reform, like the French
Revolutionary calendar (I love the month names!) and the more recent
Soviet attempt, they will not go down in the annals of history as
successful.
Our "chaotic" calendar is also a nice reminder that timekeeping based on
the motions of astronomical bodies is never going to fit into a
mechanistic pattern -- and long live the motions of astronomical
bodies!
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | <http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk> +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
To send email, substitute "aegis1" for "nospam"
Duncan A. McDonald
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 xin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I think this is a pretty good idea.
> >
I have got lots of questions and, where do I start.
7 days a week sounds good
13 months makes the year a little longer visibly
you would still have pieces left over because the orbit varies according
to some astronomers.
It was suggested that we adopt the Atomic Clock and make the corrections
weekly throughout the year. So Leap Year would not be necessary.
Note: Each clock would be connected through the telephone and/or the
computer on the internet by GMT standard.
Well that is my 25 cents U.S. ;-))))
Duncan
Duncan A. McDonald
John McCarthy
> In article <369CA1C4...@hotmail.com>, Ville Turunen
> <turune...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > The advantages of the reform are insignificant compared to all the trouble
> > it would cause. Everybody would only get very confused and every calendar,
> > computer etc would have to be updated. Y2K is a tiny problem compared to
> > the chaos that the reform would cause.
> > I think they tried a similar reform in the Soviet Union years ago. It
> > didn't work and they had to switch back to the old calendar.
>
> Nyet. You're confusing revolutions. It's the French revolution you're
> thinking of. They also went for a decimal clock.
>
> All the Soviets did was switch the Russian calendar from the Julian to the
> Gregorian, i.e., the one the rest of the Western world uses. Before the
> Big R the Russian calendar was off by 13 days. In other words, the October
> revolution actually happened in what was November for most of the world.
They did that all right, but I thought that, apart from the calendar
reform, there was a brief post-Revolutionary experiment with a 6 day
week. My friend Vladimir Lifschitz thinks it might have been a 5 day
week, the point being that it was incommensurable with religion.
I suspect that the reason for restoring the 7 day week is that the
communists were having enough political trouble as it is and needed to
reduce the motivation to join the other side in the civil war.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Mark Brader
> > > The advantages of the reform are insignificant compared to all the
> > > the Soviet Union years ago. It didn't work and they had to switch
> > > back to the old calendar.
Petteri Sulonen:
> > Nyet. You're confusing revolutions. It's the French revolution you're
> > thinking of. They also went for a decimal clock.
> >
> > All the Soviets did was switch the Russian calendar from the Julian to the
> > Gregorian, i.e., the one the rest of the Western world uses. ...
John McCarthy:
> They did that all right, but I thought that, apart from the calendar
> reform, there was a brief post-Revolutionary experiment with a 6 day
> week. My friend Vladimir Lifschitz thinks it might have been a 5 day
> week, the point being that it was incommensurable with religion.
Ville, John, Vladimir are all right. Both a 5- and 6-day week were tried.
> I suspect that the reason for restoring the 7 day week is that the
> communists were having enough political trouble as it is and needed to
> reduce the motivation to join the other side in the civil war.
No, it was after the civil war was over.
The original idea was to eliminate the idea of a common day or days of
rest each week, on the grounds that it was an inefficient way to do
things, and smacked of religion besides. The new week was instituted in
October 1929 and had 5 days named for colors: yellow, orange, red, purple,
and green in that order. Every citizen was also assigned a color, and
the corresponding day became their weekly day off.
Of course, the result was that almost everyone asked to change their
color to have it the same as all their friends and family. By January
the idea had been dropped. But the government now decided that just
because they couldn't eliminate the common day of rest, it didn't mean
they had to go to the 7-day religious week. They adopted a calendar
using 30-day months of five 6-day weeks each, and with everything numbered
rather than named. (I don't know what was done with the odd 5 or 6 days
of the year.) Further tinkering in 1932 still failed to make it work,
and they went back to the 7-day week and standard Gregorian months on
June 27, 1940.
Source: "The Book of Calendars", edited by Frank Parise (1982, Facts on
File, ISBN 0-8719-6467-8), page 377. Unfortunately this book has a habit
of contradicting itself on details (for example, it says the first of
these new calendars had five general holidays each year, and then pro-
ceeds to list six of them), so it's possible that the above account isn't
exactly right.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | In the affairs of this world men are saved,
msbr...@interlog.com | not by faith, but by the want of it. --Franklin
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Petteri Sulonen
> The advantages of the reform are insignificant compared to all the trouble
> it would cause. Everybody would only get very confused and every calendar,
> computer etc would have to be updated. Y2K is a tiny problem compared to
> the chaos that the reform would cause.
> I think they tried a similar reform in the Soviet Union years ago. It
> didn't work and they had to switch back to the old calendar.
Nyet. You're confusing revolutions. It's the French revolution you're
thinking of. They also went for a decimal clock.
All the Soviets did was switch the Russian calendar from the Julian to the
Gregorian, i.e., the one the rest of the Western world uses. Before the
Big R the Russian calendar was off by 13 days. In other words, the October
revolution actually happened in what was November for most of the world.
-- Petteri
--
"I don't deny God, it's just that I don't know if He created
Man, or Man created Him."
-- Ivan Karamazov, in Dostoevsky's /The Brothers Karamazov/
dud...@my-dejanews.com
wouldn't like to be one of the people whose birthday always ends up on
Tuesday, for instance. At least we get a rotation through the week this way.
Myself, I would like to go the opposite way and start each month with a New
Moon, and each year with a Northern Winter Solstice. Then almost no two years
would have the same calendar. Someone could do good business programming
computer calendars to this method, but we have the technology and the
astronomical know- how. I haven't figured out what to do with months that
cross the Winter Solstice, or how to name months yet, but its a start.
Jim D
In article <77hpkq$9vi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
xin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Years ago, I read about a proposal for calendar reform
> according to which, a year can be divided into 13 months (each
> being exactly 4 weeks) plus 1 or 2 additional days which do not
> belong to any month and any week. This way, the relations between
> days and dates are fixed and are the same in all months.
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea.
>
> Any comments on or problems with this idea?
>
Paul Schlyter
> Years ago, I read about a proposal for calendar reform
> according to which, a year can be divided into 13 months (each
> being exactly 4 weeks) plus 1 or 2 additional days which do not
> belong to any month and any week. This way, the relations between
> days and dates are fixed and are the same in all months.
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea.
>
> Any comments on or problems with this idea?
thousands of years. Yes, during all calendar reforms over the last
millennia, the days of the week have been continuous and unbroken.
In addition, even though Christians, Jews and Muslims use different
calendars, they all agree on what day of the week it is,
Also: if each calendar date always fell on the same weekday, wouldn't
that make the calendar somewhat more boring?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
Petteri Sulonen
Brader) wrote:
If your source is correct, how come documents between 1929 -- 1940 were
still dated using the conventional, Gregorian calendar?
I can post a scan of a document dated December 1, 1934, signed by
Yenukidze, the secretary, on behalf of Kalinin, the President of the
Executive Committee of the Supreme Soviet, if you like.
I posted this story to a Russian/East European studies mailing list; it'd
be interesting to hear what basis in fact there is for it.
-- Petteri
(Hm. Actually, I think I'll run off to the library tomorrow to see if I
can find a microfilm of a Pravda between 1929/10 and 1930/1 to clear this
up once and for all... They did try a lot of crazy stuff, but it's funny
that I hadn't heard of _this_ one...)
> Ville Turunen:
> > > > The advantages of the reform are insignificant compared to all the
> > > > trouble it would cause. ... I think they tried a similar reform in
> > > > the Soviet Union years ago. It didn't work and they had to switch
> > > > back to the old calendar.
>
> Petteri Sulonen:
> > > Nyet. You're confusing revolutions. It's the French revolution you're
> > > thinking of. They also went for a decimal clock.
> > >
> > > All the Soviets did was switch the Russian calendar from the Julian to the
--
Erik Max Francis
> It would break the continuity of the weeks, which have existed for
> thousands of years. Yes, during all calendar reforms over the last
> millennia, the days of the week have been continuous and unbroken.
> In addition, even though Christians, Jews and Muslims use different
> calendars, they all agree on what day of the week it is,
The real problem with such reforms is that they're fixing a problem
which doesn't really exist. What is so difficult about the current
calendar system? Sure, it's not nice and regular, but so what? It's
not determining the day of the week, or somesuch, is an incomputable
problem.
It might be nicer if we were using a more uniform, simplified system,
but we're not, and there isn't a good enough incentive to change it.
--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger m...@finger.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\
/ Divorces are made in heaven.
/ Oscar Wilde
Stephen Tonkin
>It might be nicer if we were using a more uniform, simplified system,
>but we're not, and there isn't a good enough incentive to change it.
...and the reason we're not is that the number of mean solar days in a
sidereal year is 365.25636, not some convenient, easily divisible number
like 360 --- and bloody good show too!
Hugo Salazar
been able to work with it. Imagine changing into something nobody else in
this
world does.
My world is not perfect, but I love my world.
xin...@hotmail.com wrote in article <77hpkq$9vi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Years ago, I read about a proposal for calendar reform
> according to which, a year can be divided into 13 months (each
> being exactly 4 weeks) plus 1 or 2 additional days which do not
> belong to any month and any week. This way, the relations between
> days and dates are fixed and are the same in all months.
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea.
>
> Any comments on or problems with this idea?
>
Richard Plinston
>
> 13 months makes the year a little longer visibly
> you would still have pieces left over because the orbit varies according
> to some astronomers.
>
> It was suggested that we adopt the Atomic Clock and make the corrections
> weekly throughout the year. So Leap Year would not be necessary.
Let me see, a leap year add 1 day in 4 years (or so). To do
this 'weekly' means that 18 minutes (or s) would be added
per week. Sometimes it would be time to get up in the
morning, sometimes at night, sometimes in the middle of the
day.
>
> Note: Each clock would be connected through the telephone and/or the
> computer on the internet by GMT standard.
Uhhh, sorry, that has been replaced by UTC.
Paul Schlyter
Stephen Tonkin <s...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>> It might be nicer if we were using a more uniform, simplified system,
>> but we're not, and there isn't a good enough incentive to change it.
>
> ...and the reason we're not is that the number of mean solar days in a
> sidereal year is 365.25636, not some convenient, easily divisible number
> like 360 --- and bloody good show too!
Instead it tries to match the tropical year (365.24219 days) and does
that pretty well (Gregorian calendar year = 365.2425 days)
M.C.Harrison
>
> In article <mMgKHXAW...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>,
> Stephen Tonkin <s...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >> It might be nicer if we were using a more uniform, simplified system,
> >> but we're not, and there isn't a good enough incentive to change it.
> >
> > ...and the reason we're not is that the number of mean solar days in a
> > sidereal year is 365.25636, not some convenient, easily divisible number
> > like 360 --- and bloody good show too!
>
> Sorry, but our calendar doesn't attempt to mimic the sidereal year.
> Instead it tries to match the tropical year (365.24219 days) and does
> that pretty well (Gregorian calendar year = 365.2425 days)
Ah, an opportunity to learn something. Sidereal year of 365.25636,
tropical year of 365.24219 which are clearly not the same thing.
Sidereal year would presumably be the length of time of one orbit by
reference to the fixed stars, whereas tropical year would be the length
of time for?
Stein A. Stromme
the period between two vernal equinoxes perhaps? (just a quick guess)
Stephen Tonkin
>Sorry, but our calendar doesn't attempt to mimic the sidereal year.
>Instead it tries to match the tropical year
You are absolutely correct -- my only (rather lame) excuse for that
error is that I was still "woozy" from the I was injected with earlier
yesterday morning (renal colic -- avoid if you can!).
Michael Dworetsky
>
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >It might be nicer if we were using a more uniform, simplified system,
> >but we're not, and there isn't a good enough incentive to change it.
>
> ...and the reason we're not is that the number of mean solar days in a
> sidereal year is 365.25636, not some convenient, easily divisible number
> like 360 --- and bloody good show too!
It may be even more relevant to consider the number of days in a mean
tropical year, 365.2422, since that is what the calendar must
approximate in order to keep the Spring equinox on the same calendar
date over hundreds and thousands of years. Sidereal years don't affect
this quite so directly.
--
Mike Dworetsky, Department of Physics
& Astronomy, University College London
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT UK
email: m...@star.ucl.ac.uk
Avital Pilpel
> Years ago, I read about a proposal for calendar reform
>according to which, a year can be divided into 13 months (each
>being exactly 4 weeks) plus 1 or 2 additional days which do not
>belong to any month and any week. This way, the relations between
>days and dates are fixed and are the same in all months.
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea.
>
> Any comments on or problems with this idea?
While it certainly is an interesting idea, it was tried before and didn't
work. After the french revolution, the year was divided into "weeks" of 10
days, with 5 days left over at the end which were deisgnated as a national
holiday. Well, after a few years - when Napoleon came to power or even
before - they moved back to the old calendar.
Why? Human nature doesn't like such changes in conventions.
By the way, some other societies (The Incas? can't recall) had a similar
calendar (with days left over) for hundreds of years, so it isn's any
particular superiority or inferiority of one system as long as both are in
tune with the solar year, of course).
James Tuttle
> Sorry, but our calendar doesn't attempt to mimic the sidereal year.
> Instead it tries to match the tropical year (365.24219 days) and does
> that pretty well (Gregorian calendar year = 365.2425 days)
and that's because there are 97 leap year days in 400 years. I think I
figured once that if the Gregorian pattern extends out to the year 4000
AD with another leap year day scratched, the 365.2425 comes down a tad
more.
Stephen Tonkin
>It may be even more relevant to consider the number of days in a mean
>tropical year, 365.2422, since that is what the calendar must
>approximate in order to keep the Spring equinox on the same calendar
>date over hundreds and thousands of years. Sidereal years don't affect
>this quite so directly.
Yes -- see my response to Paul Schlyter (I still blame the pethedine
<g>)
Paul Schlyter
M.C.Harrison <nos...@someplace.somewhere.somehow> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but our calendar doesn't attempt to mimic the sidereal year.
>> Instead it tries to match the tropical year (365.24219 days) and does
>> that pretty well (Gregorian calendar year = 365.2425 days)
>
> tropical year of 365.24219 which are clearly not the same thing.
> Sidereal year would presumably be the length of time of one orbit by
> reference to the fixed stars, whereas tropical year would be the length
> of time for?
time between two vernal equinoxes.
Paul Schlyter
> Paul Schlyter says:
>
>> Sorry, but our calendar doesn't attempt to mimic the sidereal year.
>> Instead it tries to match the tropical year (365.24219 days) and does
>> that pretty well (Gregorian calendar year = 365.2425 days)
>
> figured once that if the Gregorian pattern extends out to the year 4000
> AD with another leap year day scratched, the 365.2425 comes down a tad
> more.
Gregorian calendar, for two reasons:
1. The *current* length of the tropical year is the figure given above,
however its length changes slowly with time.
2. There will be another 2000 years before the proposed change above
to the Gregorian calendar would mean any difference from the current
Gregorian calendar. Wouldn't it be prudent to waitn another 1500 or
so years before deciding on such a change? By then, our descendants
should have a knowledge of the length of the tropical year, and its
slow change with time, which is clearly superior to our knowledge.
CG Luxford
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Avital Pilpel wrote:
> By the way, some other societies (The Incas? can't recall) had a similar
> calendar (with days left over) for hundreds of years, so it isn's any
> particular superiority or inferiority of one system as long as both are in
> tune with the solar year, of course).
>
The Muslem calendar is entirely lunar, and has no relation with the
solar year at all, any given month will move through the seasons over a
number of years.
Chris,
Michael Dworetsky
>> >
> > Sorry, but our calendar doesn't attempt to mimic the sidereal year.
> > Instead it tries to match the tropical year (365.24219 days) and does
> > that pretty well (Gregorian calendar year = 365.2425 days)
>
> tropical year of 365.24219 which are clearly not the same thing.
> Sidereal year would presumably be the length of time of one orbit by
> reference to the fixed stars, whereas tropical year would be the length
> of time for?
It is the average time from the instant of one Vernal (Spring) Equinox
to the next one. If you make the calendar year very close to this, the
first day of Spring will always be 21 March +/-1 day. The problem with
the Julian Calendar, used from Roman times until the Gregorian reform of
1572, was that it gained 10 (or was it 11) days which had to be removed
as part of the reform. Any proposal to further reform the calendar
would need adjustments for this.
Richard Plinston
> according to which, a year can be divided into 13 months (each
> being exactly 4 weeks) plus 1 or 2 additional days which do not
> belong to any month and any week. This way, the relations between
> days and dates are fixed and are the same in all months.
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea.
If they arrange it right we could have 13 'Friday the 13ths'
every year.
Charles Fiterman
xin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Years ago, I read about a proposal for calendar reform
> according to which, a year can be divided into 13 months (each
> being exactly 4 weeks) plus 1 or 2 additional days which do not
> belong to any month and any week. This way, the relations between
> days and dates are fixed and are the same in all months.
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea.
>
> Any comments on or problems with this idea?
Look at the expense of dealing with the y2k bug. Multiply
by about 1000.
This might have been a good idea at the time of Augustus
but now its too late.
B. Watson
> Years ago, I read about a proposal for calendar reform
>according to which, a year can be divided into 13 months (each
>being exactly 4 weeks) plus 1 or 2 additional days which do not
>belong to any month and any week. This way, the relations between
>days and dates are fixed and are the same in all months.
>
> I think this is a pretty good idea.
>
> Any comments on or problems with this idea?
I remember something on TV about the guy who invented the scheme. He
wanted the 13th month to be named after him. Or perhaps the extra day(s), I
don't remember which.
Since this is posted to sci.astro, one thing I thought of some time ago is
that the months would closely approximate the lunar cycle. Any amateur
astronomer would be a little annoyed if the full moon occurred during the
weekend for months on end. Of course, there are the other three weeks of
each month when there is no full moon. Then during the year or so when the
full moon occurs during the middle of the week, they'd be a *little*
happier. Generally speaking, though, a couple days either way doesn't make
that much difference.
The four-week month would be nice in one respect that calendars you don't
write on would only need one grid for the whole year. It would take most
people only a couple months to memorize it and always know which day of the
week a certain date falls on. OTOH, when the year changes, people would
make lots of mistakes. We'd hear excuses like, "Geez, boss, I was still
going on last year's calendar. Sorry." But then, the problem wouldn't be
that people are doing something a day late, but a day early.
The most obvious disadvantage would be the changing of dates. Only the
first 28 days of January would be unaffected. So at least Martin Luther
King's birthday would stay intact. On this point, though, would it really
be necessary to reconcile old calendar dates with new calendar dates? In
most cases, no. Take July 4, for example. Does it really matter how many
days into the year the independence took place? Probably not. Under the
new calendar we would still probably celebrate Independence Day on the new
July 4.
Some dates are associated with certain seasonal environment, so the later
you get in the year, the farther off they would be. Christmas is most
notable. But since the actual birth date of Jesus is assumed not to be
December 25, it wouldn't matter much if we just changed the date of
Christmas to say, the 22nd day of the new month. Then it would still be a
week from the new year. so winter holiday season would remain as it was.
I think one problem would be with those dates which were after the 28th
of the month. They *would* have to be changed.
I like the idea of a day all by itself. (Two on leap years). It would
need to have some special dating abbreviation for historical records, and
the year it borders would have to be determined by some standard convention
as well...(ie. do you use the previous year or the next year?).
But after all is said and done, the main reason I would like to see this
kind of calendar introduced is because it would totally screw up
astrologers.
Brant
__________________________________________
"But people just NEVER LEARN."
<John P. Boatwright...1998>
M.C.Harrison
>
> >> Instead it tries to match the tropical year (365.24219 days) and does
> > AD with another leap year day scratched, the 365.2425 comes down a tad
> however its length changes slowly with time.
To add to the discussion, I have some approximate figures for the
slowing of the earth's rotation with time. At present, the rate is of
the order of a second in 100,000 years. That's non-trivial, it reflects
the fact that Devonian period coral has a 400 day year based on the
daily growth rings in an annual growth cycle. Extrapolated back, the day
was only ten hours long when the earth was newly formed and you could
get 800 days into each year (AFAIK, the year length remains constant
pretty much - details wished for).
> 2. There will be another 2000 years before the proposed change above
> to the Gregorian calendar would mean any difference from the current
> Gregorian calendar. Wouldn't it be prudent to waitn another 1500 or
> so years before deciding on such a change? By then, our descendants
> should have a knowledge of the length of the tropical year, and its
> slow change with time, which is clearly superior to our knowledge.
Agreed, no need to change what works just fine.
I reckon that the seasons will be found to vary according to longer
cycles of some type or other. This will be cyclic, I reckon. The future
folk won't need to get the seasons spot on anyway, they will not need
to-the-day accuracy planting crops, and so long as it is cold in winter
and warm in summer, approximately, that's accurate enough.
Seems to me that the coldest part of the year is after christmas and the
warmest part is more like autumn anyway.
If the calendar is found to be going off by any significant amount, the
simple answer is that every few thousand years, an additional leap year
feb 29th is added, or one is removed. This can be trumpeted well in
advance, so that nobody has any excuse not to code in their year 10,000
additional leap year. Human nature being what it is, the highly
integrated and complex financial conglomerate that dominates all forms
of life will, at that point, collapse due to shoddy programming, life
will become extinct and don't say I didn't warn you all. ;)