Calendar-reform was seriously considered by the League of Nations, & maybe
even by the U.N. for a while, but nowadays, alternative calendar-proposals
can only be regarded as an artform.
.
But even as an artform, for any popularity, some design-consensus &
traditional-compliance is desirable.
.
As I mentioned, Gregorius assembled a team of astronomers & mathematicians.
…as did Julius Caesar & the French Republicans. Calendar design & proposal
isn’t a one-man project.
.
If you’ve looked at the UCC website, you might feel that UCC still needs
some work. There’s nothing wrong with that, because Calendars should be
collaborative.
.
The significant thing about UCC is that it’s a beautiful concept, & I don’t
know of any proposal like it. …& it has some popularity, traction &
momentum.
.
I’ll list some of its issues, & address them.
.
But first I want to emphasize that, though I don’t like blank-days, nearly
all new calendar proposals are for fixed calendars, and most of those use
blank days. I don’t suggest getting rid of UCC’s blank-days of 10-day week,
even though those attributes would destroy its chances as a serious
proposal, if calendar-reform were actually being considered.
.
Elizabeth Achellis proposed her World Calendar for a number of decades. The
League of Nations was seriously considering calendar-reform, & her proposal
might very well have been endorsed by the League of Nations, if only she’d
relented about the blank-days.
.
There was a compromise offer, from at least one of the world’s major
religions, to accept the World Calendar, if its blank-days were replaced by
a leapweek, as the way of achieving a fixed calendar. Achellis rejected
that compromise, thereby throwing away the World Calendar’s chance for
acceptance.
.
Though blank-days, a 10-day week, & a changed year-numbering would be
rejected by the world’s religions, and would be inconsiderate of the
billions of people who belong to those religions, & I wouldn’t want them in
a serious proposal--I don’t suggest removing those things from UCC, because
it’s only an artform, & because FRC has those attributes anyway, & because
there’s a limit to how much one can change a proposal.
.
But here are some changeable issues about UCC.
.
1. The wheel of the year is always drawn clockwise…probably because that’s
how the Sun goes around the sky in the Northern-Hemisphere. Yes, the Sun’s
movement on the ecliptic is counterclockwise, as viewed in the
Northern-Hemisphere. UCC’s wheel of the year is drawn counterclockwise. I
suggest that it should be drawn clockwise, to bring it into conformity with
the long tradition about the wheel of the year.
.
2. The yearstart target-day of UCC is the first whole day after the Vernal
Equinox. That means that the calendar’s oscillation isn’t about the Vernal
Equinox, but rather is about a time after the Vernal Equinox.
.
So change the target yearstart time to the Vernal Equinox itself.
.
Start the year on the day that starts closest to the Vernal Equinox (or to
an approximation thereof).
.
3. For UCC, a leapyear-schedule is proposed. It’s motivation isn’t
transparent, & it looks arbitrary. If you want to use a new arithmetical
yearstart rule, then it would be better to use the simple, obvious, natural
& transparent one that I proposed for the North Solstice Ecliptic-Months
Calendar. …except, of course for the Vernal-Equinox tropical year.
.
Such a rule would also have the absolute least possible
maximum-periodic-displacement, and an obvious & low unidirectional
drift-rate….lower than the one stated for the UCC’s proposed rule.
.
4. When proposing a new ecliptic-months calendar with blank-days, at least
place them to
achieve the best approximation to the actual astronomical ecliptic-months.
.
That means:
.
Give the blank-days to the ecliptic months of Taurus thru Virgo. …& give
the leapday-blank-day to Aries.
.
5. Drop the UCC’s novel Great-Year system of modified Precessional-Ages. By
long tradition, the Precessional-Ages are the periods during which the
Vernal-Equinox is in the various sidereal signs of the Zodiac. UCC should
keep those traditional Ecliptic-Ages.
.
…instead of imposing 2000-year precessional-ages, which don’t match those
of the actual sidereal signs. The current UCC diagram shows us to be at
the east end of the Age of Pisces, when actually we’re at the west end of
it, only about 5 degrees, or 350 years, from the Age of Aquarius. That
won’t due, for wide-acceptance.
.
Though I like including the Apsidal-Age in addition to the
Precessional-Age, I wouldn’t press for that change, because I haven’t heard
any agreement on that.
.
25 September
.
5 SEVEN-Libra
.
3rd of Wheezy
.
Michael Ossipoff
---
https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial
