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
