Steve Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll offer a crude paraphrase of the viewpoints on the issue of > knowing the interval to a date a year in the future:
You would have a much easier time (pun) predicting the interval in SI seconds to a calendar date a year in the future if you use the Republic of Terra Calendar instead of the Gregorian one: http://ivan.Harhan.ORG/RT/calendar/spec.txt While the focus of this list has been on the inherent incongruence between Earth's diurnal rotation and atomic time and the fundamental problems in the various schemes to paste over it, the focus of my calendrical work has been on the inherent incongruence between Earth's diurnal rotation and Earth's orbit around the Sun, and the fundamental problems in the various schemes to paste over it. Just like some people here assert that interval time and time of day are two different things (and I would go even further and say that the SI second and the civil second should be two different things, allowing the latter to be elastic), I assert that a day and a date should be two different things: days are timed by the diurnal rotation, dates are subdivisions of the tropical year and are supposed to indicate where Earth is in its orbit relative to the vernal equinox irrespective of whether it rotates or not at all. My solution is rather complex and is detailed in the RT Calendar Specification pointed to above. The relevant answer here however is that the RT Calendar assigns dates based strictly on the cycle of tropical years completely irrespective of Earth's rotation, and Earth's orbital motion is much more stable and predictable than its rotation about its axis. MS