 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Doc Farmer
LCDR
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject: New Calendar Creation Conundrum |
 |
|
New Calendar Creation Conundrum
Written by Doc Farmer
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
A physics professor at Johns Hopkins has apparently come up with a new calendar. But wait! It would seem that Doc Farmer beat him to it by about four years. So why no fanfare for our intrepid author? Is this all an insidious plot by clock makers and calendar printers? Hmmmm....
I’m a bit peeved today, as I write this commentary. Not because of any political angst or cultural degeneration, which usually gets my hackles up. No, this one is a bit personal in nature.
Last week, I ran across a story in the NewScientist.com website. Basically, it covered this professor at Johns Hopkins who decided to create a new calendar structure because the one we have right now doesn’t work too well. The professor, one Richard Henry, apparently got a bit fed up with having to deal with changing his homework assignment schedules every year. All that “thirty days hath September” crap gets confusing, even to the guys who are working out the nature of the Universe, it would seem. Quite frankly, I can sympathize.
His idea is to have 52 weeks of 7 days each, which totals up to 364 days, and then having a “Newton Week” every few years with no month designation. Basically, it’d be an end-of-year holiday for the cosmologically inclined. Months would be 30 or 31 days, so you’d still get the days falling out of sync after a while. All in all, it’s not a bad idea. Not great, but not bad.
The author of the piece, one Maggie McKee, did some research and interviews with others who are into calendars. She spoke with Owen Gingerich, an astronomer and historian of science at Harvard University. In the article, she quotes Gingerich as saying “This is the first proposal I’m aware of that gets into a standard calendar but doesn’t have the pattern of seven upset.”
That’s the part that bugged me. Because I created such a proposal over four years ago.
As many of my regular readers know, I’m neither Rep/Con nor Lib/Dem/Soc/Commie. I’m a proud member of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party (http://www.omrlp.com) and have been for many years. In fact, I wrote many of their policies in the ‘90s and early ‘00s. Our party was created by Lord David Sutch, who was an inspiration to me in my political life. He led the party for over 30 years before his untimely death. In his tenure as the creator and leader of the OMRLP, however, he changed the political landscape in the United Kingdom. He did something that no other political party or leader had done in hundreds of years. He made politics FUN!
One of the ideas he had was called Decimal Time, in which you’d change the clock and calendar so that you’d have 100 seconds to the minute, 100 minutes to the hour, 10 hours a day, five weeks per month and 10 months a year. He wanted to abolish January and February entirely, on the premise that nobody liked the weather during those months and that we could avoid Winter almost completely!
Like I said, he made politics fun.
Well, his concept got me to thinking. Which, as most of my readers know, is a dangerous thing. Mathematically, his concept didn’t quite work. It was easy to count, but it didn’t take into account things like orbital mechanics, circadian cycles, school schedules, and other mundanities like that. Face it, his Lordship was a great party leader (and one hell of a rock-and-roller) but he didn’t get into the higher math concepts all that much. Can’t says I blame him, either.
Well, around 1998 I moved to Saudi Arabia. While it is a beautiful and interesting country, it doesn’t have much in the way of entertainment (unless you actually like watching car crashes, that is). No bars, no cinemas, no theatres, etc. I got a bit bored rather quickly. So I set my mind to calculating how to make Lord Sutch’s Decimal Time concept work. It took a while, but I calculated a new concept for the clock, which was 20:100:100 instead of 24:60:60, while still sticking to a standard solar day. Then there was the Calendar. That was a bit more annoying. I did come up with a workable model, however.
In Roman times, there was the Julian Calendar, named for Julius Caesar (the creator of the Orange Julius). In the late 1500s, Pope Gregory the XIII (must’ve been an unlucky papacy) came up with the Gregorian Calendar. Now, thanks to the wellspring of genius that came from the late and great Lord David Sutch, we have the next concept in time measurement.
The Loonian Calendar.
Hey, it was for the Loony Party. We should get to name it.
Anyway, the Loonian Calendar corrects a number of problems with the Gregorian Calendar system. For one thing, it corrects the beginning of the year. Under the Julian Calendar, the first day of the year was the Vernal Equinox (Spring, for those of you too lazy to Google it). Yet, since it didn’t handle leap years, January the First kept creeping backward and backward, deeper and deeper into Winter. The Loonian Calendar fixes that, by “correcting” the starting point where March 22nd 2000 (AD) jumps to January 1st 2001 (LC). The fixes would not disturb birthdates or automatically age you nine months, but would have adjustments built in.
The real genius of the Loonian Calendar, though, is its reusability. You would have 13 months of 28 days each. Every month would begin and end identically. January 1st would always start on a Monday. In fact, every month would begin on Monday and end, four weeks later, on a Sunday. You would never have to “guess” what day the 15th would land on (Monday) or the 25th (Thursday) because it would always be the same, month to month. Because there would be 13 months, we’d have to come up with a name for the newest one. I decided to insert the new month between June and July, and gave it the name of Sutch, in memory and honor of our beloved founder of the OMRLP.
Now, 13 months of 28 days each still leaves us with 364 days. How do we deal with that? Well, not by foostering around with some silly “Newton Week” (sounds like a seven-day pig out on fig cookies). For regular (non-leap) years, you’d have the last day of the year designated as “New Year’s Eve” which would follow December 28th as its own separate day. New Year’s Eve would have no day designation (Monday-Sunday), which means that you’d automatically get a 3-day weekend. Further, it would keep the rest of the calendar in sync. For Leap Years, the Gregorian model would apply (every 4th year except for centuries not divisible by 400) there would be a “Leap Year’s Day” put after December 28th but before New Year’s Eve, (4-day weekend!) to keep everything chugging along nicely from an astronomical point of view.
I sent all of this stuff out to the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) in Geneva, Switzerland, the British Standards Institution (BSI) in London, England, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in Washington, DC, the Saudi Arabian Standards Organisation (SASO) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the Bureau International de Poids et Mesures (BIPM) in Sčvres, Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkey-Land. That was in December of 2000. I even published a press release to U.S. and U.K. news services at the same time.
Did the scientific community beat a path to my door? Did the horologists praise my more accurate clock? Did the Calendarial Connoisseurs come calling? Nope.
And yet this professor dude gets written up in NewScientist.com. It seems slightly unfair. At the very least, I’d hope to be written up in MadScientists.com.
I don’t think that Professor Henry did anything bad or wrong with his idea. It’s one of those GMTA (Great Minds Think Alike) moments.
In this case, it was his thinking alike my great mind.
I just wish that there had been a record of all this work from 1998 and 2000, so that when scientists and researchers were looking into clocks and calendars, some mention of the Loonian system would come to the fore. Lord Sutch would have liked that little bit of immortality, I think.
Now, if you’ll all excuse me, I’ll be in my room redefining the metric system.
Related resources:
Related article at NewRepublic Online (link opens new window) 
Right-click the icons below, to Save the Word (doc) or Palm (prc) files:
Cover letter sent to the ISO (37KB) 
ISO proposal for the Loonian Calendar (181KB)
Printable copy of the Loonian Calendar (142KB)
ISO proposal for Loony Time (55KB)
Press Release sent out in December 2000 (39KB)
Download and install a Loony Time demo on your Palm Pilot (45KB) 
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=12298
_________________
Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Snipe
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 574
Location: Peoria, Illinois
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oooookay. But does it have chicks on it worth hanging in my
locker?
_________________
Tin Can Sailor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rbshirley
Founder
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: New Calendar Creation Conundrum |
|
|
| Doc Farmer wrote: | “This is the first proposal I’m aware of that gets into a standard
calendar but doesn’t have the pattern of seven upset.”
That’s the part that bugged me. Because I created
such a proposal over four years ago.
I’ll be in my room redefining the metric system. |
Not to throw water on your efforts, but you were late by about 170 years.
According to Alexander Waugh in his very readable book Time, Its origin,
its enigma, its history, a Catholic priest named Abbe Marco Mastrofini in
1834 came up with the definitive calendar that blew away all the Julian,
Gregorian and previous arrangements in a way that maintained the look
and feel of these previous efforts:
o The twelve months each year have the same names
o Fifty-two weeks and 365 days in a non-leap year
o Four quarters of three months, ninty-one days each
o Quarterly months have identical symetrical days
o One extra World Day at the end of June each year
o One extra Leap World Day every four years
The obvious benefit of this calendar is that every year, the calendar day
would fall on the same day of the week: eg July 6 is always on a Friday.
The calender also maintains synchronization with the seasons. And each
quarter would have the same number of days. Important to those who
worry about the organization of this increasingly structured world.
{Arghhh !!}
This calendar was, in fact, proposed before the United Nations in 1955 for
consideration world wide. However, "the US government sent a very snotty
and sinister letter to the United Nations in March 1955, giving an indication
of how impossible it might be, in this age-enlightend democracy, to improve
the outdated system we have:"
| The US Government wrote: |
The United States Givernment does not favor any action by the United
Nations to revise the present calendar. There is no evidence of such support
in the United States for calendar reform. Large numbers of United States
citizens oppose the plan for calendar reform
|
Hmmm ... I guess I was not old enough to join in these massive protests
Ok Doc .... I leave you with one thought in your decimal pondering:
Why are there twevle months in a year, twenty four hours in a day, sixty
minutes in each hour, and three hundred sixty degrees in a complete circle?
If the world is digital why was this base-12 system so universially accepted?
{Hint: Look at the ten digits of both hands}
"All lies in jest, and a man beleves what he wants to, and disregards the rest"
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Farmer
LCDR
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:36 pm Post subject: Re: New Calendar Creation Conundrum |
|
|
| rbshirley wrote: | | Doc Farmer wrote: | “This is the first proposal I’m aware of that gets into a standard
calendar but doesn’t have the pattern of seven upset.”
That’s the part that bugged me. Because I created
such a proposal over four years ago.
I’ll be in my room redefining the metric system. |
Not to throw water on your efforts, but you were late by about 170 years.
According to Alexander Waugh in his very readable book Time, Its origin,
its enigma, its history, a Catholic priest named Abbe Marco Mastrofini in
1834 came up with the definitive calendar that blew away all the Julian,
Gregorian and previous arrangements in a way that maintained the look
and feel of these previous efforts:
o The twelve months each year have the same names
o Fifty-two weeks and 365 days in a non-leap year
o Four quarters of three months, ninty-one days each
o Quarterly months have identical symetrical days
o One extra World Day at the end of June each year
o One extra Leap World Day every four years
The obvious benefit of this calendar is that every year, the calendar day
would fall on the same day of the week: eg July 6 is always on a Friday.
The calender also maintains synchronization with the seasons. And each
quarter would have the same number of days. Important to those who
worry about the organization of this increasingly structured world.
{Arghhh !!}
This calendar was, in fact, proposed before the United Nations in 1955 for
consideration world wide. However, "the US government sent a very snotty
and sinister letter to the United Nations in March 1955, giving an indication
of how impossible it might be, in this age-enlightend democracy, to improve
the outdated system we have:"
| The US Government wrote: |
The United States Givernment does not favor any action by the United
Nations to revise the present calendar. There is no evidence of such support
in the United States for calendar reform. Large numbers of United States
citizens oppose the plan for calendar reform
|
Hmmm ... I guess I was not old enough to join in these massive protests
Ok Doc .... I leave you with one thought in your decimal pondering:
Why are there twevle months in a year, twenty four hours in a day, sixty
minutes in each hour, and three hundred sixty degrees in a complete circle?
If the world is digital why was this base-12 system so universially accepted?
{Hint: Look at the ten digits of both hands}
"All lies in jest, and a man beleves what he wants to, and disregards the rest"
. |
First of all, thanks for swapping this thread over to Geedunk. My bad for putting it in the main board...
As to the fact about the pattern of seven, I invite you to send this information to the principles of the NewScientist article -
Owen Gingerich (Haaaaah-vard Historian) - ginger@cfa.harvard.edu
Professor Richard Henry ("new" calendar guy) - henry@jhu.edu
Maggie McKee (article author) - maggie.mckee@newscientist.com
The problem with Prof. Henry's model (and the one you display as well) is that you still end up with a 30/31 day structure, which throws the week/day structure out of whack on a month-by-month basis. My model adds a new month and keeps all of them in sync.
_________________
Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rbshirley
Founder
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:29 am Post subject: Re: New Calendar Creation Conundrum |
|
|
| Doc Farmer wrote: | First of all, thanks for swapping this thread over to Geedunk
I invite you to send this information to the principles of the NewScientist
The problem with Prof. Henry's model (and the one you display as well) is
that you still end up with a 30/31 day structure, which throws the week/day
structure out of whack on a month-by-month basis. My model adds a new
month and keeps all of them in sync. |
Thank Me#1You#10 for moving the thread. It truly belongs in Gedunk
The problem with calendar reform is the one enumerated in the 1955 letter:
People worldwide are familiar with the current system, flawed as it may be,
and will resist any efforts of change. Chaos would result from forced changes.
Since the world no longer has has a central authority figure strong enough
to insist that the world change (thank heavens), the status quo will prevail
Strictly from an aesthetic view, the difference between your system and the
good Catholic priest's is the time frame for which symetry applies, and the
price paid for that symetry: Weekly versus three months at the considerable
pain of adding that pesky thirteenth month to the year. What do we call it?
Doc-ember" or maybe "Farm-uary"
What about the superstitious aspect of the number thirteen?
What happened to your desire to have everything on the decimal system?
As I mentioned before, the base-12 numerical system has history on its side.
Methunks I will just continue being confused and upset when the holidays
seem to change dates and days of the week from year to year.
As far as the Bas-tan elites are concerned: Let them eat cake. Hopefully
on the fourth Monday of the second month before Halloween. If they can
figure out on what day of the week that occurs on.
BS
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Farmer
LCDR
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:24 am Post subject: Re: New Calendar Creation Conundrum |
|
|
| rbshirley wrote: | | Doc Farmer wrote: | First of all, thanks for swapping this thread over to Geedunk
I invite you to send this information to the principles of the NewScientist
The problem with Prof. Henry's model (and the one you display as well) is
that you still end up with a 30/31 day structure, which throws the week/day
structure out of whack on a month-by-month basis. My model adds a new
month and keeps all of them in sync. |
Thank Me#1You#10 for moving the thread. It truly belongs in Gedunk
The problem with calendar reform is the one enumerated in the 1955 letter:
People worldwide are familiar with the current system, flawed as it may be,
and will resist any efforts of change. Chaos would result from forced changes.
Since the world no longer has has a central authority figure strong enough
to insist that the world change (thank heavens), the status quo will prevail
Strictly from an aesthetic view, the difference between your system and the
good Catholic priest's is the time frame for which symetry applies, and the
price paid for that symetry: Weekly versus three months at the considerable
pain of adding that pesky thirteenth month to the year. What do we call it?
Doc-ember" or maybe "Farm-uary"
What about the superstitious aspect of the number thirteen?
What happened to your desire to have everything on the decimal system?
As I mentioned before, the base-12 numerical system has history on its side.
Methunks I will just continue being confused and upset when the holidays
seem to change dates and days of the week from year to year.
As far as the Bas-tan elites are concerned: Let them eat cake. Hopefully
on the fourth Monday of the second month before Halloween. If they can
figure out on what day of the week that occurs on.
BS
. |
The base 12 system is a dual holdover from the babylonians (who were also quite taken by base 60) as well as Pope Gregory's desire to have the twelve months represent the Twelve Apostles of The Christ. Because Catholicism is "inclusive" the original names weren't discarded.
I would never name a month after myself. However, the new month, nestled gently between June and July, is named after Lord David Sutch, who was the inspiration for the calendar.
As to the 13 issue, it can be said that New Years Eve and Leap Year's Day could constitute a separate month (see the last page of the formal proposal document and you'll see what I mean). This calendar, at least, forever dispenses with Friday the 13th, to the great relief of all triskaidecaphobics out there.
As to resistance, may I say that it's futile? Sorry, had to throw a Borg reference in there. Seriously though, the metric system hasn't been "fully" adopted world-wide, and that messed up piece of Froggy inaccuracy has been around for over 150 years. You're correct that there's no papacy to force the issue as there was 500 yeas ago, but if properly marketed and promoted, the business aspects can drive the adoption by the world community. It would probably take a century (at least) to fully effect the change, and you'd still have the Hewbrew, Hij'ra and Hindi calendars in effect for religious purposes. Which is fine. You're correct that forced change would not work. See also the US Metric drive of the 70s.
_________________
Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just remember that the metric system was devised by the French.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Farmer
LCDR
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GM Strong wrote: | | Just remember that the metric system was devised by the French. |
I know. That's why it is so desperately in need of correction!
_________________
Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Farmer
LCDR
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Methinks I struck a nerve...
| Quote: | On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Doc Farmer wrote:
> The author of the piece, one Maggie McKee, did some research and
> interviews with others who are into calendars. She spoke with Owen
> Gingerich, an astronomer and historian of science at Harvard University.
> In the article, she quotes Gingerich as saying “This is the first
> proposal I’m aware of that gets into a standard calendar but doesn’t
> have the pattern of seven upset.”
>
> That’s the part that bugged me. Because I created such a proposal over
> four years ago.
>
I doubt that you deserve a reply, but clearly you don't get it.
You describe your calendar as adding days that are not one of our standard
seven days, which is characteristic of the many universal calendars that
have been proposed. It is precisely this difficulty that Prof. Henry's
proposal avoids. So clearly you did not create such a proposal. So you
are entitled to be looney but not to be bugged.
OWEN GINGERICH |
_________________
Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Farmer
LCDR
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Doc Farmer wrote: | Methinks I struck a nerve...
| Quote: | On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Doc Farmer wrote:
> The author of the piece, one Maggie McKee, did some research and
> interviews with others who are into calendars. She spoke with Owen
> Gingerich, an astronomer and historian of science at Harvard University.
> In the article, she quotes Gingerich as saying “This is the first
> proposal I’m aware of that gets into a standard calendar but doesn’t
> have the pattern of seven upset.”
>
> That’s the part that bugged me. Because I created such a proposal over
> four years ago.
>
I doubt that you deserve a reply, but clearly you don't get it.
You describe your calendar as adding days that are not one of our standard
seven days, which is characteristic of the many universal calendars that
have been proposed. It is precisely this difficulty that Prof. Henry's
proposal avoids. So clearly you did not create such a proposal. So you
are entitled to be looney but not to be bugged.
OWEN GINGERICH |
|
I just couldn't resist a reply...
Mr. Gingerich,
Ah, I see what you mean now! I thought you were talking about the seven-day cycle of the weeks within the months themselves, when in fact you were talking about the addition of "Newton Week."
However, the problem with such a week would be that it would throw the rest of the cycle off for six out of every seven years while waiting around for the next Newtonian festival of sex, drugs and celestial mechanics to begin. Further, it would screw up the day structure for that year, which I can assure you would not sit well with bankers, insurance companies and others who are heavily into a standard annual length. They calculate on 360 or 365 day years (and can cope with a 366 day year without too many problems) but will have severe conniptions if they have to deal with a 372 day year.
With respect, Prof. Henry's calendar seems to create more problems than it solves. So, while fitting nicely into a mathematical model from a theorist's point of view, it would not be as practical as a Loonian structure, which would keep firmly in line with the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Further, since the Loonian calendar corrects the horrible mistake of Pope Gregory the Whatever not putting Jan 1 back to the beginning of Spring, we're still stuck with a misnamed month (Janus was, if memory serves, the god of openings and doors) in the dead of Winter. Worse still, his calendar creates four Friday The Thirteenths every single year. While keeping all those Jason Voorhees fans happy (all 8 of them) it will cause problems for the tens of thousands of triskaidekaphobics wandering around out there.
You've also missed one other issue which I had not mentioned before. It was the little problem Romans had with zero. They didn't have one. So, we were stuck with a jump from 1 BC to 1 AD. By advancing the calendar to correct the seasonal discrepancy, we can then create a zero point as the transition between BC and AD with little problem.
Finally, sir, you seem to mistake "loony" with "stupid" - it is a common mistake for most academicians. I embrace my insanity, and work with it, not against it. You have to admit, it does give one a different perspective. For you to apparently dismiss out of hand this proposal seems quite unscientific of you. A bit of healthy debate is good for the soul. A hell of a lot more fun, too!
Loonily yours,
Doc Farmer
p.s. One of my nephews works for a medical supply company. I'll see if he can arrange delivery of an oxygen tank up to that ivory tower of yours.
p.p.s. Do Haaaaa-vahd buildings use Yale locks? Just curious!
_________________
Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blue9t3
Admiral
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
After wasting a third of my life pondering those exact questions!--- I decided to go to the dollar store and pay a buck for an 05 calendar. Now I must ponder new horizons! 
_________________
MOPAR-BUYER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Farmer
LCDR
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blue9t3 wrote: | | After wasting a third of my life pondering those exact questions!--- I decided to go to the dollar store and pay a buck for an 05 calendar. Now I must ponder new horizons! |
Good Lord! Where's the challenge in that?
_________________
Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
