Dear Fidencio Rojas Sandoval,
you wrote:
>
> Dear Simon Cassidy,
> I thank your clear
and precise observation regarding the lenght
> "real" of the "tropical year", in the sense not to take the average
interval
> between over all tropical zodiacal points, and that the "real" average
> interval between Vernal Equinoxes, is currently 365.2424 days (to
the
> nearest ten-thousandth- of- a-day) and increasing (very slowly).
> Accordingly, to be
clear, it is not necessary no modification, to
> the Gregorian leap-year rule, for the next millenia or so.
> Best regards Fidencio
Rojas S.
> 93 Ajusco St.
> Tlapan D.F.
> 14050, México
> ph. (5)-665-3873
To be clear, I would agree that, there is no point in adding another
kludged*
exception to the Gregorian leap-year rule's kludged-up* double-exception
to the
original Julian rule of "leap-years every 4 years".
However, considering that there is a Leap Year Decision Procedure which
is
superior in every respect to the Gregorian/Julian kludge*, one can
indeed
argue that we should scrap the Gregorian Calendar Reform altogether
and take
advantage of the current window of opportunity to adopt Dee's "8 leap-years
in
every 33 years" rule which gives an average calendar year of 365.2424...days.
The easiest form of this rule effectively repeats the 8 nominal leap-years
in
the years 1 to 33 A.D., over and over, every 33 years. ("Years of Jesus"?
rule).
Mathematically speaking, the rule says that an A.D. or C.E. year is
a leap-year
if the year number reduced modulo 33, is non-zero and divisible by
4.
Practically speaking (for the layman) the new Leap Year Decision Procedure is:
*************************************************************************
Start with the C.E. year-number to be tested.
Get a new number by adding the number of centuries in it
to the remaining number of years (beyond whole centuries).
E.G. for 2012 C.E. add 20 to 12 to get 32.
If possible repeat the first step until the result is below 100.
E.G. for 1996 C.E. add 19 to 96 to get 115
then repeat and add 1 to 15 to get 16.
If the result is greater than 33 then subtract 33 or 66 to finish.
E.G. for 2016 C.E. add 20 to 16 to get 36
then subtract 33 from 36 to get 3.
We now have a number guaranteed to be between 1 and 33 inclusive.
If it is 4,8,12,16,20,24,28 or 32 then the tested year is a leap-year.
*************************************************************************
So, 2012 reduces to 32 and thus is a leap-year,
and 1996 reduces to 115, then to 16 and thus is a leap-year,
but 2016 reduces to 36, then to 3, so will not be leap in the new system.
One or two, double-digit additions, or, one addition and one subtraction,
will suffice for all year-numbers until 3498 C.E. Then, two additions
and
one subtraction, or three additions, may be necessary (but three additions
and one subtraction will not be necessary until 340,099 C.E.).
*************************************************************************
The accuracy of this procedure with respect to the Vernal Equinox will
keep
that astronomical phenomenon within the same twenty-four calendar-hour
period,
every year for many centuries (possibly even millenia) to come. If
we consider
calendar dates to be CIVILLY separated, by the stroke of midnight ZONE-TIME,
then these twenty-four calendar-hours are currently on the same calendar
date
for the Eastern Standard Time zone of the U.S.A. (and all regions keeping
time
5 hours behind Greenwich Mean Time). Though it does not currently exist,
a new
time-zone, keeping time at 4 and 1/2 hours behind Greenwich, could
be
constructed if, for instance, a country like Bermuda wished to promote
tourism with a John Dee museum, dedicated to his ghostly calendar,
and
Shakespeare's prescience in symbolically burying it (in "The Tempest"
on
Bermuda with Dee/Prospero's staff) until the world matured enough to
adopt it.
In contrast the Gregorian leap-year rule allows the Vernal Equinox to
occur
at any time within about 52 calendar-hours, thus spreading the dates
of
Spring Equinox over 3 calendar days (March 19,20,21 for most of the
world).
*************************************************************************
*kludge 1. /klooj/ /n./ [from http://locke.ccil.org/jargon/jargon_26.html
]
{kluge 1. /klooj/ /n./] [THE NEW HACKERS JARGON FILE for new
philosopher's ]
Incorrect (though regrettably common) spelling of kluge (US). These
two words
have been confused in American usage since the early 1960s, and widely
confounded in Great Britain since the end of World War II. 2. [TMRC]
A crock
that works. (A long-ago "Datamation" article by Jackson Granholme similarly
said: "An ill-assorted collection of poorly matching parts, forming
a
distressing whole.") 3. /v./ To use a kludge to get around a problem.
"I've
kludged around it for now, but I'll fix it up properly later.".....
[snip]...
kluge up /vt./
To lash together a quick hack to perform a task; this is milder than
cruft
together and has some of the connotations of hack up (note, however,
that the
construction `kluge on' corresponding to hack on is never used). "I've
kluged up
this routine to dump the buffer contents to a safe place."
--
Dee's Y'rs, Simon Cassidy, 1053 47th. St. Emeryville Ca. 94608. ph.510-547-0684.
