ThePortForum.com

jdaw1 wrote:The Julian calendar started in 46 B.C.E. Later Pope Gregory corrected the error in the Julian accumulated since the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., rather than since the original Julian proclamation. During those 3.7 centuries the Julian calendar had, rounded, another 3 days of error. So the calendar is still three days wrong.

While it is true that there is a three day discrepancy between the Julian and Gregorian calendars in the period 46 BCE to 325CE, there is no clear reason why 46BCE should be considered the origin for both calendars (i.e. that they must be in alignment at that time). I get the impression that the alignment point of the Council of Nicea was selected since that was the date when the method for calculation of the date of Easter was changed, and presumably pulled the date for Easter back to what was considered the acceptable range, having drifted too later in the year by the 1500s. If selecting an arbitrary alignment date, 0BCE/CE would have seemed like a simple choice, but any date will serve providing it is clearly defined. I think you're on a loser on this one!

Or are you saying that Constantine was wrong?

There was no "0 BCE/CE".

djewesbury wrote:There was no "0 BCE/CE".

True, I should have said 1BCE/CE; though the lack of a zero always rankles for me.

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:There was no "0 BCE/CE".

True, I should have said 1BCE/CE; though the lack of a zero always rankles for me.

You and Pol Pot. The French were far more sensible. 1792 became Year I of the French Republic.

djewesbury wrote:What would we call this new calendar? The Superjulian? The New Julian?

Duh. The JDAW.

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:There was no "0 BCE/CE".

True, I should have said 1BCE/CE; though the lack of a zero always rankles for me.

You're poking me on purpose, aren't you? Both of you!

We cannot let Prince win. There was no reason to party like it was 1999, as neither the 2nd millennium nor the 20th century was going to end for another year.

Glenn E. wrote:

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:There was no "0 BCE/CE".

True, I should have said 1BCE/CE; though the lack of a zero always rankles for me.

You're poking me on purpose, aren't you? Both of you!

We cannot let Prince win. There was no reason to party like it was 1999, as the 2nd millennium wasn't going to end for another year.

Glenn, I'm with you on this one! In fact the only numerical denier that I can recall here is Rob (RAYC)!

PhilW wrote:there is no clear reason why 46BCE should be considered the origin for both calendars

Because that that is when the Julian calendar was correctly aligned, by design. Caesar did not choose the start and drift such that it would be correct when a few bishops partied in Turkey.

PhilW wrote:I get the impression that the alignment point of the Council of Nicea was selected since that was the date when the method for calculation of the date of Easter was changed

So the calendar is wrong and Easter might be correct. Whoopee do.

PhilW wrote:If selecting an arbitrary alignment date, 0BCE/CE would

I seeded that error. You missed the seed and planted your own tree.

PhilW wrote:I think you're on a loser on this one!

Oh. That’s such a disappointment.

I don't understand; why do you think Caesar's arbitrary date is less arbitrary than the Council of Nicaea?

Possibility 1. Caesar choose the date knowing that 3.7 centuries later the clock would be right.

Possibility 2. Caesar choose the date because it was then correct.

Possibility 3. Caesar was wrong, but Zaphod’s party date just happened to land on the right day.

Which is most likely?

Do you care?

djewesbury wrote:Do you care?

Yes. My phone is three days wrong. As is yours.

Not any more. To me, from now on, I'm on JDAW. It's the 18th of January. Do we want to recalibrate the year? I think we should call it 1 JW. Could you re-date all the threads in Organising Tastings and Reviews?

Sigh. With supporters like these, who needs opponents. Gregory did not change the year — that would have been confusing — he shifted the calendar by a few days. I am not proposing changing the year, which is hallowed by antiquity.

jdaw1 wrote:Sigh. With supporters like these, who needs opponents. Gregory did not change the year — that would have been confusing — he shifted the calendar by a few days. I am not proposing changing the year, which is hallowed by antiquity.

But I insist. It's the least we can do to honour you. L'an 1 de JDAW. Ça marche, non?

Do we need a vote on this????

djewesbury wrote:Do we need a vote on this????

No.

Who's question is it? Perhaps a new question would reconcile people again.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Do we need a vote on this????

No.

What shall I do with all these campaign posters, with Julian's avatar on them?

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Do we need a vote on this????

No.

What shall I do with all these campaign posters, with Julian's avatar on them?

Follow Pol Pot's lead and burn them.

Sorry Julian, it feels like desecration. It was a beautiful, crazy dream while it lasted. But it's over now. Please, don't write that letter to the Astronomer Royal, don't bother hitting 'send' on that email to Professor Brian Cox, call back the tide, snuff the candles. Our three days are gone forever.
(Incidentally, the reports that there were riots around the chant of 'give us back our eleven days' when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1752 are unfortunately untrue; but the unrest in Streatham tonight might stretch the constabulary.)

djewesbury wrote:write that letter to the Astronomer Royal

I hadn’t thought of that.

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:There was no "0 BCE/CE".

True, I should have said 1BCE/CE; though the lack of a zero always rankles for me.

Having thought about this further, I retract my correction. On the basis that both measurements (CE) are linear and do not have to be positive (if disagreeing please demonstrate where positive values only are mandated), therefore the sequence when counting backwards in CE would be 5CE, 4CE, 3CE, 2CE, 1CE, 0CE, -1CE -2CE etc. Similarly counting forwards (in time) for BCE would be 3BCE, 2BCE, 1BCE, 0BCE, -1BCE etc. On that basis "0 BCE/CE" has exactly the same meaning as "1 CE/BCE" and therefore refers to the same boundary under discussion. I'm keeping the zero!

So you're maintaining that there is one year with two names? But counting backwards, the one year with two names would be a different year. Isn't this ugly, inconsistent and unusable?

jdaw1 wrote:

PhilW wrote:there is no clear reason why 46BCE should be considered the origin for both calendars

Because that that is when the Julian calendar was correctly aligned, by design. Caesar did not choose the start and drift such that it would be correct when a few bishops partied in Turkey.

jdaw1 wrote:

PhilW wrote:I get the impression that the alignment point of the Council of Nicea was selected since that was the date when the method for calculation of the date of Easter was changed

So the calendar is wrong and Easter might be correct. Whoopee do.

When the Julian calendar was introduced there was no shift; the simply continued with the new rules for how many days per month/year etc, providing higher accuracy; there does not appear to have been any attempt at alignment with any previous value aside from "current". When the Gregorian calendar was introduced, a shift was wanted to move Easter which had shifted too far; I appreciate you may not care about the alignment of Easter, but this seems to be the arbitrary point they used rather than 46BCE, BCE/CE boundary, or "current" (1582), in order to resolve that. If you wanted to make an argument for alignment based on a "better choice" of arbitrary alignment then fair enough, though I see no reason to use the implementation of the Julian calendar as that point (ironically, given the name) over any other arbitrary value.

jdaw1 wrote:

PhilW wrote:If selecting an arbitrary alignment date, 0BCE/CE would

I seeded that error. You missed the seed and planted your own tree.

Answered above; either not an error, or I've just provided a shrubbery. Quite possibly the latter (since in reality it was an error in my intent, if perhaps not literally erroneous).

djewesbury wrote:So you're maintaining that there is one year with two names?

Every year has at least four names, depending on the scale used: 1BC, -1AD, 1BCE, -1CE; just like every temperature has at least three names depending on scale used (Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin).

djewesbury wrote:But counting backwards, the one year with two names would be a different year. Isn't this ugly

yes

djewesbury wrote:, inconsistent

no

djewesbury wrote: and unusable?

no, it's just two linear sequences with an offset of one. Confusing yes, stupid yes, unusable no.

I like that this thread informs; I'm not sure when BCE/CE became "common use", perhaps I'm just old fashioned - I was still using AD/BC and while I guessed it would be a secular version I had not heard it used before and had to look it up. While there is an increasing body of people who have no religious faith, I'm surprised by the change, given such common use; seems a bit like people wanting "personhole covers" back in the 80s, a little OTT reaction.

djewesbury wrote:What would we call this new calendar? The Superjulian? The New Julian?

Clearly it would be the "New Julian" calendar. Equally clearly the calendar would start with the year 0 NJ (New Julian) aligned with the year of his birth, plus a shift of N-days where N is an arbitrary number selected by JDAW; perhaps the number of days which would then shift his birthday to be on the 25th of December might be convenient?

Hang on, the reason for all this in the first place was that the alignment wasn't exactly right. Julian wants to know that when the sun is in its azimuth at the Summer Solstice (which will of course be the 25th of June) that all is well with the world and that the Streatham Meridian is looked to by the everyone as they synchronise their chronometers. He doesn't want arbitrariness. That's precisely what we have now. A crazy mishmash of dates and times where somehow everyone in the world agrees, but is simultaneously wrong.

djewesbury wrote:That's precisely what we have now. A crazy mishmash of dates and times where somehow everyone in the world agrees, but is simultaneously wrong.

If everyone believed in the one, true calendar then there would be no disagreement... no wait, that can't be right...

0 BCE/CE is a point in time. -1 BCE and 1 CE are years.

Glenn and Phil are going to have a fight! This is what they call a zero sum game.

Should an Admin move the calendar discussion to a separate thread?

Yes, please and then let's get on with the quiz.

I forgot to explain the Alex link. As previously revealed here, one of Alex's forebears is the painter Jacques-Louis David. David was also a member of the 'Montagne' faction in the National Convention, which included the Jacobins; once the Girondins had been routed from the Convention, the execution of the King was a formality. David was one of those who voted in favour of it. So Alex is the only one amongst us descended from a regicide, as far as we know.

djewesbury wrote:I forgot to explain the Alex link. As previously revealed here, one of Alex's forebears is the painter Jacques-Louis David. David was also a member of the 'Montagne' faction in the National Convention, which included the Jacobins; once the Girondins had been routed from the Convention, the execution of the King was a formality. David was one of those who voted in favour of it. So Alex is the only one amongst us descended from a regicide, as far as we know.

I can't believe we didn't work that out...

Me, I'm not surprised. It's like a remedial class in here.

AW77 wrote:Yes, please and then let's get on with the quiz.

Correct. Your question.

Ok, I bought two half bottles today. One was a LBV, but what was the other?

AW77 wrote:Ok, I bought two half bottles today. One was a LBV, but what was the other?

Champagne, bien sur!

Loved the question Daniel. Just wasn't sure whether to intrude upon a private grief.

Actually I have no idea what happened in that previous question. Sounded like a lot of maths kicks and giggles were had by all. Bravo.

No, not Champagne.

A rabbit?

Another bottle of port, but vintage?

DRT wrote:A rabbit?

Derek, why do I have feeling that you don't take this meaningless drivel seriously? No, it was not rabbit rilettes that I bought in a half bottle.

LGTrotter wrote:Another bottle of port, but vintage?

No port, not even from Portugal.

Derek takes this quiz much more seriously than any of us. He just can't let himself show it. Doesn't want to look weak by letting us see his love.

An Hare?

Told you.

AW77 wrote:

DRT wrote:A rabbit?

Derek, why do I have feeling that you don't take this meaningless drivel seriously? No, it was not rabbit rilettes that I bought in a half bottle.

djewesbury wrote:Derek takes this quiz much more seriously than any of us. He just can't let himself show it. Doesn't want to look weak by letting us see his love.

DRT wrote:An Hare?

djewesbury wrote:Told you.

Rumbled.