The perpetual calendar

It's much simpler to have a 13 month calendar, each with 28 days, as the
Moon cycle is, equals 364 days.

The 365th day is New Years Day, and adjusted for the yearly rotational
losses, of the planet, and a Holiday.

Put your other holidays were you want them, Humans.

߃--¹¹

Yusuf B Gursey wrote (19-02-2010 17:20):
On Feb 19, 10:59 am, António wrote:
Yusuf B Gursey wrote (19-02-2010 15:35):

the Orthodox (Eastern) churches have a slightly different system.
dunno exactly what it is.

Afaik the system is the same, it's March 21 that is different.

but for the Orthodox, the Gregorian calendar has been accepted for
other holidays. the Monophysites (Copts, Armenians, Jacobite Syrians)
observe Christmas at a different date for other reasons.

Don't tell them it's the gregorian calendar! It's the revised julian.
Don't call the others monophysites, they prefer miaphysite.
The Finnish Orthodox Church is said to have adopted the gregorian calendar.
Of the other Orthodox, some have adopted the revised julian for fixed feasts
but keep the julian for moveable ones. The moveable ones are the important
ones. The use of two calendars wreaks havoc with the liturgical year.

António Marques writes:

The Finnish Orthodox Church is said to have adopted the gregorian
calendar.

This is indeed so.

--
Aatu Koskensilta )

"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Zhang Dawei wrote (19-02-2010 19:37):
António Marques wrote:

A word of advice: when your interpretation of something makes no
sense at all, and yet a tiny change in one of your assumptions may
make all the nonsense go away, be prepared to revise your
assumption. Communication only works thanks to the ability of both
parties to infer the strictly unstated. It's only natural that
unnecessary disambiguation be omitted. That can lead to
misunderstading at times, but it's the price to pay for efficiency.

I have learned, from many years of experience, that it is far better
to interpret proposals at face-value with minimal mangling of
interpretations by guesses as to a intended interpretation. It is a
necessity in many serious areas of academic endeavour.

Of course. But there is no such thing as a literal reading. It always
involves interpretation. The interpretation that someone who went to the
trouble of thinking up that calendar actually intends the whole world to
follow american holidays may have been the first one that occurred to you,
but is too outlandish to take seriously without evidence. You might have
equally read it as implying that everyone should use the same month names
(not even translating them) that are used in the calendar's presentation.
It's just as warranted.

Another one: when you come across some idea/proposal that appears to
have some obvious flaw, which however can be left out with no impact
at all on the rest, feel free to leave it out and just evaluate the
rest.

Why not work to help improve the proposal for everyone by mentioning
flaws that need attention? Criticism can be positive as well as
negative.

Of course. You'd be quite right to point out to the owner of the website
that he could disambiguate.

wrote (19-02-2010 19:21):
In sci.physics Andrew wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:52 am, wrote:

But, the whole point of Easter is that it has a full moon! You
might as well scrap the whole thing otherwise. Or are you
suggesting that we only take holidays at Easter every four years or
so, when your “settled� date just happens to correspond with the
right lunar phase?

We don't have Christmas only when there's a bright star in the east.

It's like saying "I was born on a Wednesday, so I'll only celebrate
my birthday when it falls on a Wednesday".

The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that
arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when it
falls on a weekend than in the middle of the week. Given that Christmas
is the most important holiday in the year, should we not all get at
least a 3-day weekend, which we have for lesser holidays?

Less than around 30% of the world population cares about Christmas or
Easter or think that "Christmas is the most important holiday in the
year".

Well, but for those who don't it doesn't really matter one way or the other
what day Christmas and Easter Sunday are, does it? So what relevance do they
have for you to bring them along? Or was it just the desire to sound clever?

On Feb 19, 3:07 pm, António Marques wrote:

The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that
arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when it
falls on a weekend than in the middle of the week. Given that Christmas
is the most important holiday in the year, should we not all get at
least a 3-day weekend, which we have for lesser holidays?

Less than around 30% of the world population cares about Christmas or
Easter or think that "Christmas is the most important holiday in the
year".

Well, but for those who don't it doesn't really matter one way or the other
what day Christmas and Easter Sunday are, does it? So what relevance do they
have for you to bring them along? Or was it just the desire to sound clever?

Right, and I figure that my calendar would be no worse than the
present for those that don't.

Indeed, I considered this problem purely as a logical one; as I've
stated, I don't consider myself Christian, I adopted the Church
calendar as a base only because it makes the problem more interesting.

I didn't consider my calendar complete until I worked out my new leap
year rule (Rule #3) - it not only ensures that both Christmas and
Easter are within 7-day periods despite being a constant distance from
each other and having leap day in between, it simultaneously causes
there to be exactly 52 Sundays in every year if you take out Nov. 1
which is All Saints' day; this immediately allows te to draw up a
permanent list of the Sundays in the year with their traditional
Christian designations, and then follow the perpetual calendar.

And I moved the start of the week numbering to August from Nov. 1 so
that the academic year and the US football season would be on the
fixed schedule, and I think there can be no objection to that. The
holidays I consider are Christmas and Easter (and of course the Church
festivals fixed to them, but hardly anyone cares anymore), and US
Thanksgiving - but other civil holidays could easily be fixed to the
same if they are now observed on a Monday, say, or otherwise not fixed
to a particular date.

Andrew Usher

On 19 Feb 2010 01:06:25 -0800, R H Draney
wrote in
in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:

James Hogg filted:

Andrew Usher wrote:

Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of
the calendar, and attempting in passing to create a
more perfect Church calendar, I say the following:

[...]

Give the sound of your name, I suppose you would also
renumber the years, with year 1 in what is now 4004 BC.

I'm taking a survey...how many were thinking something
along the same lines?...

I was.

[...]

Brian

"Yusuf B Gursey" wrote in message
...

Easter is a moveable feast, meaning it is not fixed in relation to the
civil calendar. The First Council of Nicaea (325) established the date
of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full
Moon) following the vernal equinox.[3] Ecclesiastically, the equinox
is reckoned to be on March 21 (regardless of the astronomically
correct date), and the "Full Moon" is not necessarily the
astronomically correct date. The date of Easter therefore varies
between March 22 and April 25.

It does, but at present (certainly until 2199, at which point we move to a
new table) it is not capable of falling on 22 March. Of course we had 23
March in 2008 and there's a 24 April coming up next year.

Regards

Jonathan

"Yusuf B Gursey" wrote in message
...

Easter is a moveable feast, meaning it is not fixed in relation to the
civil calendar. The First Council of Nicaea (325) established the date
of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full
Moon) following the vernal equinox.[3] Ecclesiastically, the equinox
is reckoned to be on March 21 (regardless of the astronomically
correct date), and the "Full Moon" is not necessarily the
astronomically correct date. The date of Easter therefore varies
between March 22 and April 25.

It does, but at present (certainly until 2199, at which point we move to a
new table) it is not capable of falling on 22 March. Of course we had 23
March in 2008 and there's a 24 April coming up next year.

Regards

Jonathan

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:38:08 +0000, António Marques
wrote in
in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english:

[...]

Chocolate bunnies and eggs, you can put them everywhere
you like, but that's not Easter.

For me, growing up, that was exactly Easter. It was a minor
holiday, along with Thanksgiving and Hallowe'en; the major
holiday was Christmas.

Brian