B.C. & A.D. or B.C.E. & C.E.
PFJTurner
Until recently, I was in the habit of using the designations “B.C.” (meaning
“Before Christ”) and “A.D.” (meaning “Anno Domini,” or “In the Year of the
Lord”) to distinguish between old era and new era dates. I have learned from
postings in this newsgroup that this practice should be abandoned because it is
based upon religion. Even though the life and death of Jesus Christ had
enormous historical implications, as well as religious meaning, it is
inappropriate to use a religion-based dating system. Instead, it is now proper
to refer to the old era as “B.C.E.” (meaning “Before Common Era”) and the new
era as “C.E.” (meaning “Common Era”).
We should certainly act to purge the influence of religion from our dating
system. We must not take the risk that someone may be inspired by a calendar
to perform some religious act.
But does this reform go far enough? After all, despite the change in
nomenclature, the B.C.E. / C.E. dating system is still based upon the
occurrence of a religious event. The new dating system does not change, but
merely disguises, what is essentially a religion-based dating system.
We should therefore return to the dating system in use before the advent of the
B.C./A.D. system, namely the A.U.C. (meaning “Ab Urbe Condita,” or “From the
City Founding”) system based upon the year when the City of Rome was
established. Henceforth, we should refer to the current year as 2751 A.U.C.,
rather than by the religious label of “A.D. 1998" or the accomodationist label
of “1998 C.E.”
Or is the A.U.C. system too Mediterraneo-centric?
We should also rename the days of the week, because they each bear the name of
a pagan deity. Moreover, except for Saturn on Saturday, these pagan deities
appear in their White Anglo-Saxon Pagan forms, which is clearly a commemoration
of British colonialism.
We could rename the days after the seven virtues - or is that too judgmental?
The months of January, March, May and June also require new names, being
memorials to the pagan gods Janus, Mars, Maia and Juno. Mars and Juno are
especially unsuitable models for the modern age, being a war-monger and a
non-feminist, respectively. (The two-faced Janus is less objectionable,
obviously being a politician.) How about Onember, Threember, Fivember and
Sixober?
And, should not we not also rename July and August, because these months are
named after Julius Caesar and Octavian Augustus, both being dead white European
males with swords? Sevenober and Eightember are available (September and
October are already taken, albeit misplaced).
Most importantly, however, we should change our clocks to reflect a logical,
metric-system ten hour cycle, rather than an irrational and archaic twelve hour
cycle. The twelve hour cycle is a relic of ancient Sumerian cultural
imperialism.
I am most enthusiastic about these changes. Please join me in this crusade.
-PFJT
The REAL King Arthur, A History of Post-Roman Britannia, A.D. 410 - A.D. 593
http://members.aol.com/PFJTurner/SKS.html
Eramon1
pfjturner wrote:
<snip the date/month/day of the week renaming>
>
>Most importantly, however, we should change our clocks to reflect a logical,
>metric-system ten hour cycle, rather than an irrational and archaic twelve
>hour
>cycle. The twelve hour cycle is a relic of ancient Sumerian cultural
>imperialism.
>
>I am most enthusiastic about these changes. Please join me in this crusade.
In order to not confuse those who count seconds out loud, I propose that
high-powered rockets be used to shift the Earth's orbit slightly, slowing the
rotation so that our "days" become 100,000 seconds exactly. We'd have to push
the planet in a bit towards the Sun to create a 100 day "year". It could be
done. It would get a little hot, sure, but would, as you suggest, do away with
all of those nasty religious references.
-Eric Ramon
Portland, Oregon
LadiKath
>metric-system ten hour cycle, rather than an irrational and archaic twelve
>hour
>cycle. The twelve hour cycle is a relic of ancient Sumerian cultural
>imperialism.
>
>I am most enthusiastic about these changes. Please join me in this crusade.
>
>
Exactly, Sugar. Point well made.
Katharine
Mark Devere Davis
I LOVE IT!!! LOL
Mark
Joe Jefferson
LOL! Good thinking. Down with cultural imperialism! Give me political
correctness or give me... er... um... ?
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated June 13th, 1998.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Robert Briggs
Joe Jefferson wrote in message <35830...@primenet.com>...
>PFJTurner wrote:
>
>> nomenclature, the B.C.E. / C.E. dating system is still based upon the
>> occurrence of a religious event. The new dating system does not change,
but
>> merely disguises, what is essentially a religion-based dating system.
>>
>> We should therefore return to the dating system in use before the advent
of the
>> B.C./A.D. system, namely the A.U.C. (meaning “Ab Urbe Condita,” or “From
the
>> City Founding”) system based upon the year when the City of Rome was
>> established. Henceforth, we should refer to the current year as 2751
A.U.C.,
>> rather than by the religious label of “A.D. 1998" or the accomodationist
label
>> of “1998 C.E.”
>
>LOL! Good thinking. Down with cultural imperialism! Give me political
>correctness or give me... er... um... ?
>
Amen to that (Wait...amen? Is there a P.C. equivalent?)
Bob Briggs
Doug Weller
In article <35830...@primenet.com>, on 14 Jun 1998 00:10:01 -0700,
jjst...@primenet.com said...
>
> PFJTurner wrote:
> >
> > Until recently, I was in the habit of using the designations “B.C.” (meaning
> > “Before Christ”) and “A.D.” (meaning “Anno Domini,” or “In the Year of the
> > Lord”) to distinguish between old era and new era dates. I have learned from
> > postings in this newsgroup that this practice should be abandoned because it is
> > based upon religion. Even though the life and death of Jesus Christ had
> > enormous historical implications, as well as religious meaning, it is
> > inappropriate to use a religion-based dating system. Instead, it is now proper
> > to refer to the old era as “B.C.E.” (meaning “Before Common Era”) and the new
> > era as “C.E.” (meaning “Common Era”).
Do as you please, no one is trying to stop you. What I am fed up with is
the disinformation being put out by people like you. The BCE/CE
terminology was developed by Biblical scholars so that Muslim, Jewish and
Christian scholars could discuss common dates without a religious bias.
It's also used by some archaeologists, and perhaps, although I don't
know, some historians. I have not yet found anyone trying to press this
on the public, only people making misleading claims about it.
I doubt that many people have the slightest idea what AD means!
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Dick Eney
In article <6m0q0g$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Robert Briggs <bobr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Amen to that (Wait...amen? Is there a P.C. equivalent?)
>
-- Dick Eney
Kim Burkard
In article fee42b66db...@news.demon.co.uk, dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) writes:
>> PFJTurner wrote:
>> > Until recently, I was in the habit of using the designations “B.C.” (meaning
>> > “Before Christ”) and “A.D.” (meaning “Anno Domini,” or “In the Year of the
>> > Lord”) to distinguish between old era and new era dates. I have learned from
>> > postings in this newsgroup that this practice should be abandoned because it is
>> > based upon religion. Even though the life and death of Jesus Christ had
>> > enormous historical implications, as well as religious meaning, it is
>> > inappropriate to use a religion-based dating system. Instead, it is now proper
>> > to refer to the old era as “B.C.E.” (meaning “Before Common Era”) and the new
>> > era as “C.E.” (meaning “Common Era”).
>
>Do as you please, no one is trying to stop you. What I am fed up with is
>the disinformation being put out by people like you. The BCE/CE
>terminology was developed by Biblical scholars so that Muslim, Jewish and
>Christian scholars could discuss common dates without a religious bias.
>It's also used by some archaeologists, and perhaps, although I don't
>know, some historians. I have not yet found anyone trying to press this
>on the public, only people making misleading claims about it.
>
>I doubt that many people have the slightest idea what AD means!
I have to agree with Doug that few people (at least in the US) would
know what AD stood for. Heck, watch the "Tonight Show" sometime.
Leno has this schtick he does every so often where he asks the
"man on the street" simple things that you would expect most folks
in the US to have a clue about. Things like "Name one of the rights
in the Bill of Rights." and "Name one of the 10 commandments."
The answers are amusing....and sort of sad as well.
I wonder if he asked them what BC, AD, etc. stood for what kind
of answers he would get. Amusing, I would imagine.
-kim
---
Kimberly Burkard | _ Everything I needed to know in life, I
Eastman Kodak Company| _____C .._. learned from my ferret:
Rochester, New York | ____/ \___/ Frolic and dance for joy often, have
bur...@kodak.com |<____/\_---\_\ no fear or worries, and enjoy life.
Steve/Beth George
In alt.mythology Dick Eney <dick...@access4.digex.net> wrote:
: In article <6m0q0g$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
: Robert Briggs <bobr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:>
:>Amen to that (Wait...amen? Is there a P.C. equivalent?)
:>
: Try "So mote it be!"
<rizzafrizza> Moties getting into everything...
Watch out for the beam!
Steve
: -- Dick Eney
--
gaanji
In article <6m0vij$6...@access4.digex.net>, dick...@access4.digex.net (Dick
Eney) wrote:
> In article <6m0q0g$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> Robert Briggs <bobr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >Amen to that (Wait...amen? Is there a P.C. equivalent?)
> >
> Try "So mote it be!"
>
> -- Dick Eney
Oh, I love it! An actual meaning of "amen" *and* wonderfully witchy!
- gaanji
--
"If coincidences are just coincidences, why do they feel so contrived?" -X Files
magister
You are so right in saying that very few people know the meaning of
"A.D." I was read the riot act by a minister (the father of one of my
Latin students) for suggesting that it meant something other than "after
death".
Its usage in Christianity was a profession of faith, not just a calendar
citation. The whole profession would be tranlated, "In the ____th year
of the birth of OUR Lord Jesus Christ." It is understandable then that
non Christians might have a problem with the citation. Perhaps they
sence more readily what it really is than those of us who are
Christians.
Given on the 15 day of June, in the 1998th year of the birth of our Lord
Jesus Christ. :-)
Doug Weller
In article <01bd9948$f78622a0$1951...@206.64.130.25.vicon.net>, on 16
Jun 98 02:28:29 GMT, crow...@vicon.net said...
>
> I've been waiting for someone to point out that the beginning of AD is
> calculated wrong, and that the birth of Christ took place in BC--
>
>
Or at the time of the census, 6AD <G> (I think that story is just put in
as an excuse to place Jesus in Bethlehem.
ric carter
magister <vfe...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Given on the 15 day of June, in the 1998th year of the birth of our Lord
> Jesus Christ. :-)
You mean, in the 1998th year of the era beginning 4 or 6 or whatever
years after the birth of the rebel leader known to certain people as
Jesus Christ or Yeshua ben Yusef or whatever, right?
*
*** try SkeptiChat, a mail.list for interesting, annoying folks ***
*
to join: email 'subscribe skeptichat' to: majo...@lists.sonic.net
Morrigan Levi
magister wrote:
> On to another subject: Ever notice how many folk confuse the
> approaching new millenium with the year 2000? It's not just the person
> in the street making this mistake; editors fail to point this out to
> journalists. One would only hope for a little more precision. I
> suppose that the computer problems with the date of 2000, commonly
> called the "millenium bug", don't help.
i think you may find that a precise date will have little relevance to
the mania and hysteria whipped up by journalists and apocalyptic cults
concerning the millenium. the power of the millenium is in the theory
and the power/prophesy associated with it, not whether it occurs in
1999, 2000 or 2001 - or even whether it's illogical because of time
differences etc. etc.
but for those who do value precision, i'm sure you're right that the
current trains of thought (media, millenium bug etc.) don't really help.
morrigan
robert...@dial.pipex.com
In article <3588b7cd....@news.sonic.net>,
r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
>
> magister <vfe...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Given on the 15 day of June, in the 1998th year of the birth of our Lord
> > Jesus Christ. :-)
>
> You mean, in the 1998th year of the era beginning 4 or 6 or whatever
> years after the birth of the rebel leader known to certain people as
> Jesus Christ or Yeshua ben Yusef or whatever, right?
If we're being pedantic (original poster included a smiley - you didn't) then
where on earth did you get the "rebel leader" bit from? In the Gospels He's
not a rebel leader at all, and they are the only sources which deal with the
episode. Indeed, I seem to remember Pontius Pilate informing us that He had
done nothing wrong. If you have another source which gives a different
account, would you mind sharing it with us?
What's wrong with "Jesus son of Joseph"? Do you refer to Kikero and Salah ad
Din instead of Cicero and Saladin? Words and pronunciations do after all
mutate over time. And what's your source for Him being the son of Joseph
anyway? Again, as far as I know the only even remotely contemporary acounts
are those of the Gospels, and they are quite certain that whoever His father
was, it wasn't Joseph; his reaction to Mary's pregnancy was to quietly
divorce her, remember. Discard the testimony of the Gospels (as I can quite
see a non-Christian would) and you are left with *no* information on His
parentage, not with the information that Joseph was His father, just as if
you discard the testimony of the Gospels for the reason behind His execution
you are left with no info. rather than a belief that He was a "rebel leader".
I said I was being pedantic! Sorry for perpetuating this remarkably silly and
occasionally offensive thread - anyone got any idea what it is doing on
alt.legend.king-arthur?
Rob
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Boogie
> PFJTurner wrote:
> > We should therefore return to the dating system in use before the advent of the
> > B.C./A.D. system, namely the A.U.C. (meaning “Ab Urbe Condita,” or “From the
> > City Founding”) system based upon the year when the City of Rome was
> > established. Henceforth, we should refer to the current year as 2751 A.U.C.,
> > rather than by the religious label of “A.D. 1998" or the accomodationist label
> > of “1998 C.E.”
How about M.R. for "my reality" and Y.R. for "your reality"?
> > Most importantly, however, we should change our clocks to reflect a logical,
> > metric-system ten hour cycle, rather than an irrational and archaic twelve hour
> > cycle. The twelve hour cycle is a relic of ancient Sumerian cultural
> > imperialism.
We are not on a 12 hr cycle. We are on a 24 hr cycle, based not on
Sumerianimperialism but on how long it takes our planet to revolve.
PFJTurner
Re: We are not on a 12 hr cycle. We are on a 24 hr cycle, based not on
Sumerian imperialism but on how long it takes our planet to revolve.
Not to be too picky, but we are on system under which each day is divided intyo
two cycles, a daytime and a nightime cycle, each arbitrarily divided into 12
units called hours (hence the sundial). A base-10 system would divide each
cycle into 10 hours.
magister
Gee, and all along I thought the sun revolved around the earth.
joshua geller
magister <vfe...@swbell.net> writes:
> Gee, and all along I thought the sun revolved around the earth.
It does. Go look.
Also, there are only seven planets.
my very best,
josh
Joe Jefferson
Boogie wrote:
>
> > PFJTurner wrote:
> > > We should therefore return to the dating system in use before the advent of the
> > > B.C./A.D. system, namely the A.U.C. (meaning “Ab Urbe Condita,” or “From the
> > > City Founding”) system based upon the year when the City of Rome was
> > > established. Henceforth, we should refer to the current year as 2751 A.U.C.,
> > > rather than by the religious label of “A.D. 1998" or the accomodationist label
> > > of “1998 C.E.”
>
> How about M.R. for "my reality" and Y.R. for "your reality"?
>
> > > Most importantly, however, we should change our clocks to reflect a logical,
> > > metric-system ten hour cycle, rather than an irrational and archaic twelve hour
> > > cycle. The twelve hour cycle is a relic of ancient Sumerian cultural
> > > imperialism.
>
Unless you're in the military, we're on a 12 hour system that cycles
twice during each rotation. But the number 12 is totally arbitrary. ANY
system can be based on how long it takes our planet to revolve. Twelve
hours, twenty hours, one hundred hours, or ten million hours. You simply
decide how many hours you want the day to last and adjust the length of
the hour accordingly. Just like the ancient Sumerians did.
Let's see - 100 seconds in a minute; 100 minutes in an hour; 10 hours in
a day (one full rotation) would make the second just slightly shorter
than we're used to, but the minute would be noticeably longer. Maybe we
could change the calender so it's based on the founding of the UN,
that's pretty multicultural. That way we wouldn't have to take the risk
that someone might be offended when they look at a calender, or want to
know what time it is. ; )
Steve/Beth George
On 19 Jun 1998 18:48:24 -0700, joshua geller
<dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>magister <vfe...@swbell.net> writes:
>
>
>Also, there are only seven planets.
If it's only the ones you can verify with your own eyes, I'd have to
say nine. I've tracked Uranus and Neptune myself and I'd definitely
call them 'wanderers'.
Steve
P.S.
Yes, I used a telescope.
S
>
>my very best,
>
>josh
>
>
>
***********************************
For Best Results -- 86 the 86
***********************************
joshua geller
Aqua...@86ccnet.com (Steve/Beth George) writes:
> On 19 Jun 1998 18:48:24 -0700, joshua geller
> <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> >magister <vfe...@swbell.net> writes:
> >Also, there are only seven planets.
> If it's only the ones you can verify with your own eyes, I'd have to
> say nine. I've tracked Uranus and Neptune myself and I'd definitely
> call them 'wanderers'.
> Yes, I used a telescope.
It doesn't count; people are mercurial, venereal, martial, jovial and
saturnine. They are not uranal or neptunian. It's only the ones that
can be seen with the naked eye that were used in assembling the human
mind.
my very best,
josh
Stephen Capen
You don't want to count the planet recently discovered? Or Tralfamador?
joshua geller wrote:
> magister <vfe...@swbell.net> writes:
>
> > Gee, and all along I thought the sun revolved around the earth.
>
> It does. Go look.
>
> Also, there are only seven planets.
>
> my very best,
>
> josh
Steve/Beth George
On 20 Jun 1998 01:47:35 -0700, joshua geller
<dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>Aqua...@86ccnet.com (Steve/Beth George) writes:
>> On 19 Jun 1998 18:48:24 -0700, joshua geller
>> <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>> >magister <vfe...@swbell.net> writes:
>
>> >Also, there are only seven planets.
>
>> If it's only the ones you can verify with your own eyes, I'd have to
>> say nine. I've tracked Uranus and Neptune myself and I'd definitely
>> call them 'wanderers'.
>
>> Yes, I used a telescope.
>
>It doesn't count; people are mercurial, venereal, martial, jovial and
>saturnine. They are not uranal or neptunian. It's only the ones that
>can be seen with the naked eye that were used in assembling the human
>mind.
You know, you can see Uranus with the naked eye.
Steve
Gwen Saylor
All --
>magister <vfe...@swbell.net> wrote:
>You are so right in saying that very few people know the meaning of
>"A.D." I was read the riot act by a minister (the father of one of my
>Latin students) for suggesting that it meant something other than "after
>death".
>Its usage in Christianity was a profession of faith, not just a calendar
>citation. The whole profession would be tranlated, "In the ____th year
>of the birth of OUR Lord Jesus Christ." It is understandable then that
>non Christians might have a problem with the citation. Perhaps they
>sence more readily what it really is than those of us who are
>Christians.
>Given on the 15 day of June, in the 1998th year of the birth of our Lord
>Jesus Christ. :-)
Except that literally AD, or IOW anno Domini, means "in the year
of the Lord" or "in the Lord's year." There isn't any *our* in there
or anything about *birth*, as it is simply a matter of Domini's being
possessive in the phrase. This, of course, regardless of traditional
Xtian usage. Speaking of which <g>, AD specifies a year of the
Xtian era. When do we call it quits on that era and begin to
specify the years of another? <she asks hopefully <g>>
Given this 19th day of June, in the 1998th Lord's year. <g>
Stey-yu.
Hen to Pan,
Gwen
--------------------------------------------------------------
And when one hears the cry of his heart and the call of his
spirit, we say that such a one is possessed of a madness,
and we cleanse ourselves of him.
Kahlil Gibran, _A Tear and a Smile_
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher B Siren
In article <358AE5...@primenet.com>,
Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Boogie wrote:
>>
>> > PFJTurner wrote:
>> > > Most importantly, however, we should change our clocks to reflect
a logical,
>> > > metric-system ten hour cycle, rather than an irrational and
archaic twelve hour
>> > > cycle. The twelve hour cycle is a relic of ancient Sumerian cultural
>> > > imperialism.
>>
>> We are not on a 12 hr cycle. We are on a 24 hr cycle, based not on
>> Sumerianimperialism but on how long it takes our planet to revolve.
>
>Unless you're in the military, we're on a 12 hour system that cycles
>twice during each rotation. But the number 12 is totally arbitrary. ANY
>system can be based on how long it takes our planet to revolve. Twelve
>hours, twenty hours, one hundred hours, or ten million hours. You simply
>decide how many hours you want the day to last and adjust the length of
>the hour accordingly. Just like the ancient Sumerians did.
This has veered way off group topic, but I suppose that's not so bad given
the low volume over the summer. Anyway, the 12 hour system is not as
arbitrary as Joe suggests here. It is based on the observation that there
are nearly 12 months per year. From that, you look at the suns path
through the sky, see that it describes a great circle and chop that circle
up into twelve months, each 15 degrees in width. The reason why those
twelve segments get further divided into the 15 degrees escapes me right
now, but this is the basis for the the 360 degrees in a circle idea and 12
signs in the zodiac.
Now, through the course of a single day, the sun appears to follow a
circular path as well. I suppose it might make more sense to have only
assigned 12 hours to the day then, one for every 15 degrees that the sun
appears to travel, corresponding with the distance it travels during one
lunar cycle. Where does the otther factor of two come from? I'm not
sure, I'd have to poke around some - could be the night/day thing or the
before/after noon thing which we have today, but I'm fairly certain it has
an astronomical/mathematical reason to it.
Chris Siren
cbs...@hopper.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren
Myths and Legends: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/myth.html
UNH Observatory: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/observatory.html
Christopher B Siren
In article <6mgt8i$q...@mozz.unh.edu> cbs...@unh.edu (Christopher B
Siren) writes:
>>Unless you're in the military, we're on a 12 hour system that cycles
>>twice during each rotation. But the number 12 is totally arbitrary. ANY
>>system can be based on how long it takes our planet to revolve. Twelve
>>hours, twenty hours, one hundred hours, or ten million hours. You simply
>>decide how many hours you want the day to last and adjust the length of
>>the hour accordingly. Just like the ancient Sumerians did.
>
>This has veered way off group topic, but I suppose that's not so bad given
>the low volume over the summer. Anyway, the 12 hour system is not as
>arbitrary as Joe suggests here. It is based on the observation that there
>are nearly 12 months per year. From that, you look at the suns path
>through the sky, see that it describes a great circle and chop that circle
>up into twelve months, each 15 degrees in width. The reason why those
>twelve segments get further divided into the 15 degrees escapes me right
>now, but this is the basis for the the 360 degrees in a circle idea and 12
>signs in the zodiac.
>
>Now, through the course of a single day, the sun appears to follow a
>circular path as well. I suppose it might make more sense to have only
>assigned 12 hours to the day then, one for every 15 degrees that the sun
>appears to travel, corresponding with the distance it travels during one
>lunar cycle. Where does the otther factor of two come from? I'm not
>sure, I'd have to poke around some - could be the night/day thing or the
>before/after noon thing which we have today, but I'm fairly certain it has
>an astronomical/mathematical reason to it.
Ok, so it's bad form to follow up one's own post but here I am doing it
anyway. The 12 months/12 circular divisions get further divided by 30
because of the number of days (rounded up) in a lunar cycle. Each day of
motion of the sun through the sky is thus approximately one degree. I
must have kept the computational part of my brain elsewhere this morning,
because its the 12x30 that gives you the 360 degrees in the circle, not
12x15. This gives us the sexigessimal system.
Chris Siren
joshua geller
Aqua...@86ccnet.com (Steve/Beth George) writes:
> On 20 Jun 1998 01:47:35 -0700, joshua geller
> <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> >Aqua...@86ccnet.com (Steve/Beth George) writes:
> >> On 19 Jun 1998 18:48:24 -0700, joshua geller
> >> <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> >> >Also, there are only seven planets.
> >> If it's only the ones you can verify with your own eyes, I'd have to
> >> say nine. I've tracked Uranus and Neptune myself and I'd definitely
> >> call them 'wanderers'.
> >> Yes, I used a telescope.
> >It doesn't count; people are mercurial, venereal, martial, jovial and
> >saturnine. They are not uranal or neptunian. It's only the ones that
> >can be seen with the naked eye that were used in assembling the human
> >mind.
> You know, you can see Uranus with the naked eye.
If I were not trying really hard to be kind right now, I'd probably
call you an anal pedant; uranus may or may not be visible with the
naked eye. There still isn't a level of the human spirit named after
it.
my very best,
josh
Joe Jefferson
joshua geller wrote:
>
> Aqua...@86ccnet.com (Steve/Beth George) writes:
> > On 19 Jun 1998 18:48:24 -0700, joshua geller
> > <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>
> > >Also, there are only seven planets.
>
> > If it's only the ones you can verify with your own eyes, I'd have to
> > say nine. I've tracked Uranus and Neptune myself and I'd definitely
> > call them 'wanderers'.
>
> > Yes, I used a telescope.
>
> It doesn't count; people are mercurial, venereal, martial, jovial and
> saturnine. They are not uranal or neptunian. It's only the ones that
> can be seen with the naked eye that were used in assembling the human
> mind.
>
>
> josh
All that just to assemble the mind? Heck, I put mine together from a
plastic kit I got at WalMart. Only took me one evening.
ric carter
robert...@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> In article <3588b7cd....@news.sonic.net>,
> r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
> > magister <vfe...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Jesus Christ. :-)
> >
> > years after the birth of the rebel leader known to certain people as
> > Jesus Christ or Yeshua ben Yusef or whatever, right?
>
> If we're being pedantic (original poster included a smiley - you didn't) then
> where on earth did you get the "rebel leader" bit from? In the Gospels He's
> not a rebel leader at all, and they are the only sources which deal with the
> episode. Indeed, I seem to remember Pontius Pilate informing us that He had
> done nothing wrong. If you have another source which gives a different
> account, would you mind sharing it with us?
Yeshua was executed by the Romans asr they usually dealt with rebel
leaders - crucifixion. A religious offender would have been punished
differently. The gospel accounts were carefully spin-doctored
regarding Yeshua's activities - a religion based on a 'terrorist' in
the Jewish Revolt would have been rather hard to sustain under Roman
occupation, eh? The portrait of Pilate drawn in the synoptic gospels
does not accord with contemporaneous accounts. If you read gospels as
history, you'll be misled; read as propaganda, they make more sense.
> I said I was being pedantic! Sorry for perpetuating this remarkably silly and
> occasionally offensive thread - anyone got any idea what it is doing on
> alt.legend.king-arthur?
Nothing, but this is on alt.mythology too - I dunno who started the
cross-posting. I'll stop if you'll stop. Maybe.
*
*** try SkeptiChat, a mail.list of irrelevance & irreverence ***
Kim Burkard
In article 1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com, robert...@dial.pipex.com () writes:
>In article <3588b7cd....@news.sonic.net>,
> r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
>> You mean, in the 1998th year of the era beginning 4 or 6 or whatever
>> years after the birth of the rebel leader known to certain people as
>> Jesus Christ or Yeshua ben Yusef or whatever, right?
>
>If we're being pedantic (original poster included a smiley - you didn't) then
>where on earth did you get the "rebel leader" bit from? In the Gospels He's
>not a rebel leader at all, and they are the only sources which deal with the
>episode. Indeed, I seem to remember Pontius Pilate informing us that He had
>done nothing wrong. If you have another source which gives a different
>account, would you mind sharing it with us?
[Fluff on]
The whole rebel bit reminds me of a song off of the Chieftains'
Christmas album "Bells of Dublin" (IIRC). Again if I recall correctly,
the song was titled "The Rebel Jesus". It seems like there are at
least a couple of people, other then ric, who think of Jesus as a
rebel. ;)
BTW, even if you don't celebrate Christmas, the album is quite
enjoyable and entertaining. Check it out. :)
[Fluff off]
ric carter
Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Boogie wrote:
> >
> > We are not on a 12 hr cycle. We are on a 24 hr cycle, based not on
>
> Unless you're in the military, we're on a 12 hour system that cycles
> twice during each rotation. But the number 12 is totally arbitrary. ANY
> system can be based on how long it takes our planet to revolve. Twelve
> hours, twenty hours, one hundred hours, or ten million hours. You simply
> decide how many hours you want the day to last and adjust the length of
> the hour accordingly. Just like the ancient Sumerians did.
The Victor 9000 [and the Apple III??] had variable-speed disk drives.
With modern technology, there's no problem with having variable-length
hours - I mean, we've adapted to variable-length [leap] years fairly
well, eh? Well, some of us have, anyway... But yeah, redefine the
hour - two types of hour, actually: the hour(day) is 1/12th of the
span from sunrise to sunset, the hour(night) is 1/12th of the time
from sunset to sunrise - recalculated daily at Greenwich or the Naval
Observatory, index ticks broadcast and relayed via satellite to keep
all clocks in sync worldwide. No problem. Can we get a grant?
> Let's see - 100 seconds in a minute; 100 minutes in an hour; 10 hours in
> a day (one full rotation) would make the second just slightly shorter
> than we're used to, but the minute would be noticeably longer. Maybe we
> could change the calender so it's based on the founding of the UN,
> that's pretty multicultural. That way we wouldn't have to take the risk
> that someone might be offended when they look at a calender, or want to
> know what time it is. ; )
I dunno about indexing time re: the UN, but the next dominant human
culture will undoubtedly recalenderize based on its own favourite
point-in-time - like, when Micro$oft buys the world, we'll date events
as BG and AG. Of course, a truly rational system would begin with the
Big Bang, have no 'before', and measure clock-ticks since the start of
Time. In hex. Decimal is so passe, don't you agree? I thought so.
Readers on alt.legend.king-arthur should just ignore all this.
Reality is whatever bites your ass * http://www.sonic.net/~ric
ric carter
gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) wrote:
> Xtian usage. Speaking of which <g>, AD specifies a year of the
> Xtian era. When do we call it quits on that era and begin to
> specify the years of another? <she asks hopefully <g>>
*I* called it quits long ago, after I renounced by Free Baptist
ordination and went Universal Life. But I digress. As I've mentioned
elsewhere, it's time we started measuring Time at the beginning, with
the Big Bang. And 'years' are so parochial, as would be rotations of
the galaxy, or any other measure based on 'local' [non-universal]
phenomena. The decay rate of some radioactive isotope would make a
good, unbiased standard for clock-ticks - counteded in hexadecimal, of
course, not the hopelessly anthropocentric decimal system. But we'd
have to rewrite all the Y2K fixes again...
You folks on alt.legend.king-arthur: predent this isn't happening.
Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
magister
Except that literally AD, or IOW anno Domini, means "in the year of the
Lord" or "in the Lord's year." There isn't any *our* in there or
anything about *birth*, as it is simply a matter of Domini's being
possessive in the phrase. This, of course, regardless of traditional
era. When do we call it quits on that era and begin to specify the
years of another? <she asks hopefully <g>>
Given this 19th day of June, in the 1998th Lord's year. <g>
Stey-yu.
Hen to Pan,
Gwen
Of course you are right! A.D. literally means, "in the year of the
Lord" which literally doesn't make any sense. Just as you point out
that there isn't any "our" in there or "birth" either, would you concede
that there is no verb or subject? Even in the worst of vulgar Latin
sentences the use of a subject and verb was honored or at least
implied. In order for "anno domini" to make sense one has to assume
that a literary devise is operative here; that of quoting a portion
which then stands for the whole. It is not as simple as "domini" being
in the genitive case since the operative word in the phrase is "anno"
which happens to be a function of the ablative; domini is subordinate to
anno. This, of course, regardless of traditional Xian usage. So as to
your suggestion I simply respond: Non tenet aquam.
Gwen Saylor
Ric and All --
>r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
>>gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) wrote:
>> Xtian usage. Speaking of which <g>, AD specifies a year of the
>> Xtian era. When do we call it quits on that era and begin to
>> specify the years of another? <she asks hopefully <g>>
>*I* called it quits long ago, after I renounced by Free Baptist
>ordination and went Universal Life. But I digress. As I've mentioned
>elsewhere, it's time we started measuring Time at the beginning, with
>the Big Bang. And 'years' are so parochial, as would be rotations of
>the galaxy, or any other measure based on 'local' [non-universal]
>phenomena. The decay rate of some radioactive isotope would make a
>good, unbiased standard for clock-ticks - counteded in hexadecimal, of
>course, not the hopelessly anthropocentric decimal system. But we'd
>have to rewrite all the Y2K fixes again...
>You folks on alt.legend.king-arthur: predent this isn't happening.
Alt.mythology, please forgive me even though I do know what I do. <g>
Quits on the Culture, yes, I called that long ago... during the phase
wherein I passed from atheism to pantheism... but we've continued
to need a way to designate dates... and no one's started any sort of
*real* movement, eh? Frankly I like QD Jones' views about AP and
AA and all (See the post -- "Re: 1998 A.P. (Age of Pisces) was: Re:
BC&AD or BCE&CE," by Quentin David Jones <quen...@iinet.net.au>),
because I don't see how we can date from the creation of All by and
from itself since we don't know exactly when it happened. <g> It
allows us to acknowledge the passage of Ages, which would probably
be just as good for us as acknowledging the passage of seasons. My
husband has another idea that's -of course- too logical for anyone to
seriously consider. <g> He says we should leave the dating as it is
except stick in a zero on the AD side (causing this year to be 1999
AD), and then drop the abreviations altogether, using a negative sign
and a positive sign as in any normal number line (so this would be the
year +1999).
> Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
Stey-yu.
Hen to Pan,
Gwen
--------------------------------------------------------------
ric carter
gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) wrote:
> >r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
> > ... it's time we started measuring Time at the beginning, with the
> >Big Bang. And 'years' are so parochial, as would be rotations of
> >the galaxy, or any other measure based on 'local' [non-universal]
> >phenomena. The decay rate of some radioactive isotope would make a
> >good, unbiased standard for clock-ticks - counteded in hexadecimal,
> >of course, not the hopelessly anthropocentric decimal system. But
> >we'd have to rewrite all the Y2K fixes again...
>
> *... Frankly I like QD Jones' views about AP and
> AA and all (See the post -- "Re: 1998 A.P. (Age of Pisces) was: Re:
> BC&AD or BCE&CE," by Quentin David Jones <quen...@iinet.net.au>),
> because I don't see how we can date from the creation of All by and
> from itself since we don't know exactly when it happened. <g> It
> allows us to acknowledge the passage of Ages, which would probably
> be just as good for us as acknowledging the passage of seasons.
Ah, but 'seasons' and equinoctial 'ages' are only relevant whilst
we're stuck on this planet, which won't be for much longer IMHO.
In another couple centuries, when we've expanded across the galaxy,
only the BIG picture of Time will do. Start early, count big.
> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
>
> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/
__/__/__/__/__/ Life: It's nothing like the brochure __/__/__/__/
__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/
Gwen Saylor
Ric and All --
>r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
>>gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) wrote:
>> *... Frankly I like QD Jones' views about AP and
>> AA and all (See the post -- "Re: 1998 A.P. (Age of Pisces) was: Re:
>> BC&AD or BCE&CE," by Quentin David Jones <quen...@iinet.net.au>),
>> because I don't see how we can date from the creation of All by and
>> from itself since we don't know exactly when it happened. <g> It
>> allows us to acknowledge the passage of Ages, which would probably
>> be just as good for us as acknowledging the passage of seasons.
>Ah, but 'seasons' and equinoctial 'ages' are only relevant whilst
>we're stuck on this planet, which won't be for much longer IMHO.
>In another couple centuries, when we've expanded across the galaxy,
>only the BIG picture of Time will do. Start early, count big.
True enough (if we aren't thrown backward by events before we
get to this galactic exploration and claiming stage). I don't find
fault with your reasoning on this issue; I just don't think we know
exactly when to start your system. <g> If we start at present and
work backwards through the Ages, we'll find out what Age began
the Universe. <!> We'd even develop a system of designating
which Precession we meant to discuss. Of course I realize that we
have a problem with AP, AA, etc., also, since we still don't know
precisely how long a Precession of the Equinoxes is (so we can't
divide one up evenly -- *and* it seems the Ages aren't even anyway
and we don't know precisely how to date them *and* all of this might
be changing gradually as time goes by). If we only knew more about
how long each event has taken (Universe, Precession, Ages), we
could then take our pick of dating methods. As it stands, we're a
little hung up in just counting forth as we go and noting as back as
we've been able to find out about. <g>
>> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
>>
>> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
>Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
joshua geller
gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) writes:
> >r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
> >Ah, but 'seasons' and equinoctial 'ages' are only relevant whilst
> >we're stuck on this planet, which won't be for much longer IMHO.
> >In another couple centuries, when we've expanded across the galaxy,
> >only the BIG picture of Time will do. Start early, count big.
> True enough (if we aren't thrown backward by events before we
> get to this galactic exploration and claiming stage). I don't find
> fault with your reasoning on this issue; I just don't think we know
> exactly when to start your system.
The system started when people noticed the precession of the
equinoxes. This happened when agriculture was invented, or rather a
hundred years or so after.
This was "the beginning of time". A typical, though late, version of
the myth describing this event (awareness of the precession of the
equinoxes) is Kronos interrupting the fuckery of Ouranos and Gaia by
castrating Ouranos and throwing his severed penis into the Sea, whence
Aphrodite rose from the foam.
my best,
josh
Neil Bailey
joshua geller wrote:
Aqua...@86ccnet.com (Steve/Beth George) writes:
> > You know, you can see Uranus with the naked eye.
>
> If I were not trying really hard to be kind right now, I'd probably call
> you an anal pedant; uranus may or may not be visible with the naked eye.
> There still isn't a level of the human spirit named after it.
uranal retentive?
Sorry.
Ciao,
Neil
Steve/Beth George
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 02:46:13 GMT, Neil Bailey <n...@shaw.wave.ca>
wrote:
Arrrrrrrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhh! I was trying so hard to be Scientific, not
Scat-o-logical!
Oh well, maybe I'll get that extra bathroom fixture instead.
Steve
>
>Ciao,
> Neil
Steve/Beth George
>
>
>joshua geller wrote:
>
>Aqua...@86ccnet.com (Steve/Beth George) writes:
>
>> If I were not trying really hard to be kind right now, I'd probably call
>> you an anal pedant; uranus may or may not be visible with the naked eye.
>> There still isn't a level of the human spirit named after it.
Ya know Josh I was being serious. I don't make jokes like that. As I
read it later, I realized it's double meaning - and for that I
apologise. Honestly, Uranus (the planet) has a brightness of 5.5, the
human eye (average human) can easily see to 6.
You said only the planets that can be seen, I still state Uranus (the
planet) can be seen. To say the human mind can only be affect by
planets that are visible AND have a level of human spirit named after
it is stretching it to the extreme.
Steve
>
>uranal retentive?
>
>Sorry.
ric carter
gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) wrote:
> >r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
>
> >Ah, but 'seasons' and equinoctial 'ages' are only relevant whilst
> >we're stuck on this planet, which won't be for much longer IMHO.
> >In another couple centuries, when we've expanded across the galaxy,
> >only the BIG picture of Time will do. Start early, count big.
>
> your system. <g> If we start at present and work backwards through
> the Ages, we'll find out what Age began the Universe. <!> We'd even
> develop a system of designating which Precession we meant to discuss.
> methods. As it stands, we're a little hung up in just counting forth
> as we go and noting as back as we've been able to find out about. <g>
OK, so there's *some* contention as to the length of Time from the Big
Bang 'til Now - no problem, just use adjustable Eras. It's done all
the time - Xians, Mayans, Hebrews, Romans, Egyptians, all fiddle(d)
with calendars, squeezing and stretching, adjusting, force-fiting the
events to the framework, or the framework to the events. Even Special
Prosecutors "do it". It's traditional.
> >> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
> >> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
> >Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
> Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
Ric "at times I think there are no words but these to tell what's true
/ there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden" Carter
Gwen Saylor
Ric and All --
>r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
>>gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) wrote:
>> True enough <...> I just don't think we know exactly when to start
>> your system. <g> If we start at present and work backwards through
>> the Ages, we'll find out what Age began the Universe. <!> We'd even
>> develop a system of designating which Precession we meant to discuss.
>> <...> If we only knew more about how long each event has taken
>> (Universe, Precession, Ages), we could then take our pick of dating
>> methods. As it stands, we're a little hung up in just counting forth
>> as we go and noting as back as we've been able to find out about. <g>
>OK, so there's *some* contention as to the length of Time from the Big
>Bang 'til Now - no problem, just use adjustable Eras. It's done all
>the time - Xians, Mayans, Hebrews, Romans, Egyptians, all fiddle(d)
>with calendars, squeezing and stretching, adjusting, force-fiting the
>events to the framework, or the framework to the events. Even Special
>Prosecutors "do it". It's traditional.
*Everyone does it* is no good excuse. <g> Didn't your Mom ever
ask you what you'd do if all the other kids jumped off a cliff?! <heh>
Seriously, did you know the Muslims call the era AH (or sometimes
not capitalized, meaning anno hegirae, "in the year of the Hegira")
and consider it to be the Muslim era? I'd just as soon not do
something else stupid to cover the fact that something stupid's been
done. <g> But, on the other hand, I'd also just as soon use zodiacal
Ages if we're going to use adjustable Eras. <g> So, say an Age (Era)
is approximately 2000 years long and we just use that. What
approximate norm shall we use for the age of the Universe in years?
Name yer beginning point, Ric. <g>
>> >> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
>> >> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
>> >Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
>> Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
>Ric "at times I think there are no words but these to tell what's true
>/ there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden" Carter
Gwen "Fly Translove Airways/ Getcha there on time" Saylor
ric carter
gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) wrote:
> >r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
> >>gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) wrote:
>
> >> <...> If we only knew more about how long each event has taken
> >> (Universe, Precession, Ages), we could then take our pick of dating
> >> methods. As it stands, we're a little hung up in just counting forth
> >> as we go and noting as back as we've been able to find out about. <g>
>
> >OK, so there's *some* contention as to the length of Time from the Big
> >Bang 'til Now - no problem, just use adjustable Eras. It's done all
> >the time - Xians, Mayans, Hebrews, Romans, Egyptians, all fiddle(d)
> >events to the framework, or the framework to the events. Even Special
> >Prosecutors "do it". It's traditional.
>
> *Everyone does it* is no good excuse. <g> Didn't your Mom ever
> ask you what you'd do if all the other kids jumped off a cliff?! <heh>
Well, no - but I'm surprised my folks didn't drown me when they had
the opportunity. But then, tearing pages from wall calendars wasn't
really a big fad when I was a kid... #8-)
> Seriously, did you know the Muslims call the era AH (or sometimes not
> capitalized, meaning anno hegirae, "in the year of the Hegira") and
> consider it to be the Muslim era? I'd just as soon not do something
> else stupid to cover the fact that something stupid's been done. <g>
As I pointed out elsewhere here, dating systems are just part of the
dogma wars between competing belief-systems. Ya grow a myth, ya start
Time at the birth of that myth, ya bludgeon others with your calendar
and ideology, they do likewise, ad infinitum. The prevalence of any
specific calendar just indicates the domain of the dominant heresy.
> But, on the other hand, I'd also just as soon use zodiacal
> Ages if we're going to use adjustable Eras. <g> So, say an Age (Era)
> is approximately 2000 years long and we just use that. What
> approximate norm shall we use for the age of the Universe in years?
> Name yer beginning point, Ric. <g>
Hmm, I choose... this point right here ===> . <=== Cute, ain't it?
> >> >> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
> >> >> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
> >> >Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
> >> Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
> >Ric "at times I think there are no words but these to tell what's true
> >/ there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden" Carter
> Gwen "Fly Translove Airways/ Getcha there on time" Saylor
Ric "it's the Time of the Season of love..." Carter
Mark Devere Davis
ric carter (r...@sonic.net) writes:
>
>> >> >> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
>> >> >> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
>> >> >Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
>> >> Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
>> >Ric "at times I think there are no words but these to tell what's true
>> >/ there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden" Carter
>> Gwen "Fly Translove Airways/ Getcha there on time" Saylor
>
> Ric "it's the Time of the Season of love..." Carter
"Time Everlasting.Time to play B-Sides." Blue Oyster Cult!
Gwen Saylor
Ric and All --
>r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
>>gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) wrote:
>> Seriously, did you know the Muslims call the era AH (or sometimes not
>> capitalized, meaning anno hegirae, "in the year of the Hegira") and
>> consider it to be the Muslim era? I'd just as soon not do something
>> else stupid to cover the fact that something stupid's been done. <g>
>As I pointed out elsewhere here, dating systems are just part of the
>dogma wars between competing belief-systems. Ya grow a myth, ya start
>Time at the birth of that myth, ya bludgeon others with your calendar
>and ideology, they do likewise, ad infinitum. The prevalence of any
>specific calendar just indicates the domain of the dominant heresy.
Well, of course. But can't we be better now? Shouldn't we try to
grow or somethin'? <g> I mean, after all, we've been there, done
that, so let's do something new (unless everyone could agree on a
designated new dominant god <g>).
>> But, on the other hand, I'd also just as soon use zodiacal
>> Ages if we're going to use adjustable Eras. <g> So, say an Age (Era)
>> is approximately 2000 years long and we just use that. What
>> approximate norm shall we use for the age of the Universe in years?
>> Name yer beginning point, Ric. <g>
>Hmm, I choose... this point right here ===> . <=== Cute, ain't it?
Not funny (well, actually it is, but keep to the point <g>). You're
the dude sayin' we should start at the far back and go forward,
remember? So how old do *you* say the Universe is, hmmm...?
'Cause I'd be pleased to just draw the line here, call this the Age
of Aquarius (or AQ just so the Anonymous Ones don't get ticked),
and campaign for the election of a new ruling god of the order (a
goddess this time, please). <g>
>> >> >> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
>> >> >> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
>> >> >Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
>> >> Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
>> >Ric "at times I think there are no words but these to tell what's true
>> >/ there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden" Carter
>> Gwen "Fly Translove Airways/ Getcha there on time" Saylor
>Ric "it's the Time of the Season of love..." Carter
Gwen "Time it was and what a time it was/ It was/ A time of innocence,
a time of confidences" Saylor
Dori Brauman
please delete me from your mailings
ric carter wrote:
> gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) wrote:
>
> > Xtian usage. Speaking of which <g>, AD specifies a year of the
> > Xtian era. When do we call it quits on that era and begin to
> > specify the years of another? <she asks hopefully <g>>
>
> *I* called it quits long ago, after I renounced by Free Baptist
> ordination and went Universal Life. But I digress. As I've mentioned
> elsewhere, it's time we started measuring Time at the beginning, with
> the Big Bang. And 'years' are so parochial, as would be rotations of
> the galaxy, or any other measure based on 'local' [non-universal]
> phenomena. The decay rate of some radioactive isotope would make a
> good, unbiased standard for clock-ticks - counteded in hexadecimal, of
> course, not the hopelessly anthropocentric decimal system. But we'd
> have to rewrite all the Y2K fixes again...
>
> You folks on alt.legend.king-arthur: predent this isn't happening.
>
> Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
Joe Jefferson
Mark Devere Davis wrote:
>
> ric carter (r...@sonic.net) writes:
> >
> >> >> >> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
> >> >> >Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
> >> >> Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
> >> >Ric "at times I think there are no words but these to tell what's true
> >> >/ there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden" Carter
> >> Gwen "Fly Translove Airways/ Getcha there on time" Saylor
> >
> > Ric "it's the Time of the Season of love..." Carter
>
Ahem. "To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose
under Heaven." Ecclesiastes first, then the Birds.
ric carter
gw...@wave.park.wy.us (Gwen Saylor) wrote:> > ... myth, ya bludgeon others with your calendar
> >and ideology, they do likewise, ad infinitum. The prevalence of any
> >specific calendar just indicates the domain of the dominant heresy.
>
> Well, of course. But can't we be better now? Shouldn't we try to
> grow or somethin'? <g> I mean, after all, we've been there, done
> that, so let's do something new (unless everyone could agree on a
> designated new dominant god <g>).
Ah, the difference between what should be and what is... I firmly
think that in a couple of generations we'll so master physical and
biological technologies that we'll make OURSELVES gods, effectively.
At which point the myths, dogmas, heresies, bones of contention, will
be quite unrecognizable to our (now) selves... but being human [well,
sorta] we'll keep on fighting over such points. Shouldn't, but will.
> >> What approximate norm shall we use for the age of the Universe in
> >> years? Name yer beginning point, Ric. <g>
>
> >Hmm, I choose... this point right here ===> . <=== Cute, ain't it?
>
> Not funny (well, actually it is, but keep to the point <g>). You're
> the dude sayin' we should start at the far back and go forward,
> remember? So how old do *you* say the Universe is, hmmm...?
Insufficient data. Beep. But we won't *always* be in such a state of
ignorance/confusion - so I'll defer labeling TheStartOfTime until a
strong consensus is achieved. [How's THAT for ducking the issue?
Heh.] But really - I don't have to know WHEN to start the calendar,
as long as I'm confident that such a starting point CAN be determined
forthwith; thus the concept of using an absolute time.index is valid.
"The solution is left as an exercise for the reader." #8-)
> 'Cause I'd be pleased to just draw the line here, call this the Age
> of Aquarius (or AQ just so the Anonymous Ones don't get ticked),
> and campaign for the election of a new ruling god of the order (a
> goddess this time, please). <g>
A billion years here, a billion years there, and pretty soon you're
talking about REAL time. I don't know if any goddesses want to wait
around that long - I mean, there's better things to do than just sit
and wait for the universe to expand. That's more of a guy thang...
especially if the beer, chips and tapes hold out. <burp> OK, so maybe
we're at the cusp of the Age of Cheez-Whiz and the Age of Guacamole.
But I digress. My objection to establishing calendars based on local
[like, within a galactic supergroup] events, still stands. We'd end
up with the usual plethora of parochial time-systems - the Milky Way
clock, the Andromeda clock, the M31 clock, up to the Virgo Supergroup
clock, et al. Andromedeans would trumpet the superiority of THEIR
damn timescale, M31ers would resist violently, the Lesser Magelenic
Clouds would be nuked... bother. We should do better.
> >> >> >> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
> >> >> >> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
> >> >> >Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
> >> >> Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
> >> >Ric "at times I think there are no words but these to tell what's true
> >> >/ there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden" Carter
> >> Gwen "Fly Translove Airways/ Getcha there on time" Saylor
> >Ric "it's the Time of the Season of love..." Carter
> Gwen "Time it was and what a time it was/ It was/ A time of innocence,
> a time of confidences" Saylor
Ric "there's a time for us / somewhere, a time for us" Carter
[consequences]
Cynegels
Modern Norse Pagans use a Runic calendar. It is based on an estimation of
theyear in which Odhin gave the runes to humanity. The year 250 bc in the
christian calendar is where the runic calendar starts. According to the runic
calendar, we are in the year 2248.
Cynegels
Cynegels
Perhaps we should call the year 1776 the year zero in the American Calendar. We
are currently in the year 222 of the AC.
Cynegels
Joe Jefferson
ric carter wrote:
> <snip>
> But I digress. My objection to establishing calendars based on local
> [like, within a galactic supergroup] events, still stands. We'd end
> up with the usual plethora of parochial time-systems - the Milky Way
> clock, the Andromeda clock, the M31 clock, up to the Virgo Supergroup
> clock, et al. Andromedeans would trumpet the superiority of THEIR
> damn timescale, M31ers would resist violently, the Lesser Magelenic
> Clouds would be nuked... bother. We should do better.
The problem with this noble idea is that a universal time-system would
require universal time, which doesn't seem to exist. It is impossible to
determine how much time has passed between any two events without
specifying the observer's frame of reference. (I'll leave it as a
physics exercise for the reader to specify the frame of reference in
which the time between the Big Bang and the emergence of H. sapiens was
6 days instead of 13+ billion years. It *can* be done though.)
> > >> >> >> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
> > >> >> >> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
> > >> >> >Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
> > >> >> Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
> > >> >Ric "at times I think there are no words but these to tell what's true
> > >> >/ there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden" Carter
> > >> Gwen "Fly Translove Airways/ Getcha there on time" Saylor
> > >Ric "it's the Time of the Season of love..." Carter
> > Gwen "Time it was and what a time it was/ It was/ A time of innocence,
> > a time of confidences" Saylor
>
> Ric "there's a time for us / somewhere, a time for us" Carter
> [consequences]
Joe "if you've got the money, honey I've got the time" Jefferson
> __/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/
> __/__/__/__/__/ Life: It's nothing like the brochure __/__/__/__/
> __/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/__/
--
ric carter
Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
> ric carter wrote:
> > <snip>
> > But I digress. My objection to establishing calendars based on local
> > [like, within a galactic supergroup] events, still stands. We'd end
> > up with the usual plethora of parochial time-systems - the Milky Way
> > clock, the Andromeda clock, the M31 clock, up to the Virgo Supergroup
> > clock, et al. Andromedeans would trumpet the superiority of THEIR
> > damn timescale, M31ers would resist violently, the Lesser Magelenic
> > Clouds would be nuked... bother. We should do better.
>
> The problem with this noble idea is that a universal time-system would
> require universal time, which doesn't seem to exist. It is impossible
> to determine how much time has passed between any two events without
> specifying the observer's frame of reference.
IOW, context matters. Yeah, well, sure. And then we'll have the
inevitable debate over the 'best' POV, the "most valid" frame of
reference; before you know it - BANG! - there goes another galaxy.
> (I'll leave it as a
> physics exercise for the reader to specify the frame of reference in
> which the time between the Big Bang and the emergence of H. sapiens was
> 6 days instead of 13+ billion years. It *can* be done though.)
Sure, if your 'days' are long enough. "1+1=3, given a sufficiently
large value of 1" - something like that, eh?
> > > >> >> >> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
> > > >> >> >> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
> > > >> >> >Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
> > > >> >> Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
> > > >> >Ric "at times I think there are no words but these to tell what's
> > > >> >true / there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden" Carter
> > > >> Gwen "Fly Translove Airways/ Getcha there on time" Saylor
> > > >Ric "it's the Time of the Season of love..." Carter
> > > Gwen "Time it was and what a time it was/ It was/ A time of innocence,
> > > a time of confidences" Saylor
> > Ric "there's a time for us / somewhere, a time for us" Carter
> Joe "if you've got the money, honey I've got the time" Jefferson
Ric "no time for the killing floor" Carter
Gwen Saylor
Ric, Joe, and All --
>r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
>>Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> > ric carter wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> > But I digress. My objection to establishing calendars based on local
>> > [like, within a galactic supergroup] events, still stands. We'd end
>> > up with the usual plethora of parochial time-systems - the Milky Way
>> > clock, the Andromeda clock, the M31 clock, up to the Virgo Supergroup
>> > clock, et al. Andromedeans would trumpet the superiority of THEIR
>> > damn timescale, M31ers would resist violently, the Lesser Magelenic
>> > Clouds would be nuked... bother. We should do better.
Is that a quote? <g> Gwen Saylor wrote:
*Well, of course. But can't we be better now? Shouldn't we try to
*grow or somethin'? <g> I mean, after all, we've been there, done
*that, so let's do something new (unless everyone could agree on a
*designated new dominant god <g>).
>> The problem with this noble idea is that a universal time-system would
>> require universal time, which doesn't seem to exist. It is impossible
>> to determine how much time has passed between any two events without
>> specifying the observer's frame of reference.
>IOW, context matters. Yeah, well, sure. And then we'll have the
>inevitable debate over the 'best' POV, the "most valid" frame of
>reference; before you know it - BANG! - there goes another galaxy.
My entire point being that as much as we humans have loved Eras and/or
Ages based zodiacally and with associated deities, we should actually
utilize the system suggested by my husband (quote following from my
earlier post of this subject), namely:
*My husband has another idea that's -of course- too logical for
*anyone to seriously consider. <g> He says we should leave
*the dating as it is except stick in a zero on the AD side
*(causing this year to be 1999 AD), and then drop the
* abreviations [sic] altogether, using a negative sign and a
*positive sign as in any normal number line (so this would be
*the year +1999).
Note also that *the year in question* doesn't cause a context problem
on Earth to Earthlings. A problem only occurs when one begins to
consider hours on Earth or the POV of other planets of ours or other
star systems. I would think that as physiologically tied to this
planet as we are, it will never become necessary to realign our
designation of our own personal time (year) to that of another system
(except perhaps to note that in such-and-such system *they* say it is
the year dat-de-dah, as we do already with the Hebrews and the
Muslims). IOW, I cannot see humans redesignating the year while in
our or another star system. When we've come upon the point of
actually meeting face-to-face with beings from other systems whose
POV causes us to require a way to compare, we already do know
how to do that and retain our own system. Since we haven't yet
encountered beings from said other systems IMPOV, the point is
deprived of practical significanse.
The problem with Ric's view that we should date from the beginning
isn't contextual. We simply do not know for sure when the beginning
was. <g>
>> > > >> >> >> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
>> > > >> >> >> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
>> > > >> >> >Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
>> > > >> >> Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
>> > > >> >Ric "at times I think there are no words but these to tell what's
>> > > >> >true / there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden" Carter
>> > > >> Gwen "Fly Translove Airways/ Getcha there on time" Saylor
>> > > >Ric "it's the Time of the Season of love..." Carter
>> > > Gwen "Time it was and what a time it was/ It was/ A time of innocence,
>> > > a time of confidences" Saylor
>> > Ric "there's a time for us / somewhere, a time for us" Carter
>> Joe "if you've got the money, honey I've got the time" Jefferson
>Ric "no time for the killing floor" Carter
Gwen "By the time I get to Phoenix, you'll be rising" Saylor
Joe Jefferson
ric carter wrote:
>
> Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > ric carter wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > But I digress. My objection to establishing calendars based on local
> > > [like, within a galactic supergroup] events, still stands. We'd end
> > > up with the usual plethora of parochial time-systems - the Milky Way
> > > clock, the Andromeda clock, the M31 clock, up to the Virgo Supergroup
> > > clock, et al. Andromedeans would trumpet the superiority of THEIR
> > > damn timescale, M31ers would resist violently, the Lesser Magelenic
> > > Clouds would be nuked... bother. We should do better.
> >
> > require universal time, which doesn't seem to exist. It is impossible
> > to determine how much time has passed between any two events without
> > specifying the observer's frame of reference.
>
> IOW, context matters. Yeah, well, sure. And then we'll have the
> inevitable debate over the 'best' POV, the "most valid" frame of
> reference; before you know it - BANG! - there goes another galaxy.
>
> > physics exercise for the reader to specify the frame of reference in
> > which the time between the Big Bang and the emergence of H. sapiens was
> > 6 days instead of 13+ billion years. It *can* be done though.)
>
> Sure, if your 'days' are long enough. "1+1=3, given a sufficiently
> large value of 1" - something like that, eh?
No, nothing so trivial. I said it was a physics exercise, not an attempt
to be cute. I was connecting this with my point above about there being
no such thing as absolute time. Just apply the Lorentz equation to
figure out where you would have to have been standing. (If this were
sci.physics I would also challenge you to figure out why this is a
particularly interesting frame of reference for cosmology - quite apart
from the connection with Genesis.)
C Barrans
For those of us who don't know the Lorentz equation and haven't taken any
physics course since 1987, could you please explain where you would have
to have been standing and why this is a particularly interesting frame of
reference? I'm really, really curious about this one!
-- CB
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Science is not the way to find answers to all our questions.
Science is a way to find better questions.
ric carter
> >> > Andromedeans would trumpet the superiority of THEIR damn
> >> > timescale, M31ers would resist violently, the Lesser Magelenic
> >> > Clouds would be nuked... bother. We should do better.
>
> Is that a quote? <g>
Right-a-rootie.
> The problem with Ric's view that we should date from the beginning
> isn't contextual. We simply do not know for sure when the beginning
> was. <g>
Ah, but we don't *have* to know NOW, just sometime soon - like, before
any more calendars are designed. Anyway, it'll take awhile to rewrite
the time-keeping software. There's no rush. Waiting is.
> >> > > >> >> >> > Ric "time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is" Carter
> >> > > >> >> >> Gwen "time, time, time, see what's become of me" Saylor
> >> > > >> >> >Ric "Time has come today / young hearts go their way" Carter
> >> > > >> >> Gwen "It's the time of the season for loving" Saylor
> >> > > >> >Ric "at times I think there are no words but these to tell what's
> >> > > >> >true / there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden" Carter
> >> > > >> Gwen "Fly Translove Airways/ Getcha there on time" Saylor
> >> > > >Ric "it's the Time of the Season of love..." Carter
> >> > > Gwen "Time it was and what a time it was/ It was/ A time of innocence,
> >> > > a time of confidences" Saylor
> >> > Ric "there's a time for us / somewhere, a time for us" Carter
> >> Joe "if you've got the money, honey I've got the time" Jefferson
> >Ric "no time for the killing floor" Carter
> Gwen "By the time I get to Phoenix, you'll be rising" Saylor
Ric "trying to avoid TIME IN A BOTTLE, but failing" Carter
*
** try SkeptiChat, a mail.list of irreverence & irrelevance, etc **
Joe Jefferson
>
> Joe Jefferson wrote:
> >
> > ric carter wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > > > ric carter wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > But I digress. My objection to establishing calendars based on local
> > > > > [like, within a galactic supergroup] events, still stands. We'd end
> > > > > up with the usual plethora of parochial time-systems - the Milky Way
> > > > > clock, the Andromeda clock, the M31 clock, up to the Virgo Supergroup
> > > > > damn timescale, M31ers would resist violently, the Lesser Magelenic
> > > > > Clouds would be nuked... bother. We should do better.
> > > >
Actually, the answer is a bit of a trick. You would have to be moving,
not standing. And moving very rapidly at that. So rapidly that your
speed would be barely distinguishable from that of light. The Lorentz
equations describe the behavior of objects as they accelerate. There is
one that describes the reduction in length, one that describes the
increase in mass, and the one I was alluding to, which describes the
slow down of time.
What makes the six day duration - or any duration at that order of
magnitude - particularly interesting is that you would be travelling at
essentially the same speed as the outermost expansion of the universe.
Very nearly keeping in step with it IOW.
Thus endeth the off topic portion of our show.