This is getting pretty far afield from the question of Coordinated Universal Time or leap seconds. Perhaps there is a more appropriate mailing list for such discussions?
Rob Seaman Lunar and Planetary Laboratory University of Arizona — > On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Preben Nørager <[email protected]> wrote: > > Zefram wrote: > > "The birthdate of Jesus is a historical question, and (as I noted) historians > are pretty sure that AD 0 isn't the answer. ISO 8601 takes no position on > that question. .. If you get any more specific than he [Dionysius Exiguus] > did, for example if you state that Jesus was born specifically in AD 0, then > you're taking a position of your own on this question, a refinement of > Dionysius's position." > > I don't think it matters what "historians" say is the answer to the question > of the historical birthdate of Jesus. We know neither the historical date of > the conception, nor of the birth. I simply state that year zero is "the year > of the incarnation", and that statement I think is less controversial than > any other statement about the birthdate of Jesus. It is well known that AD > begin with the incarnation, and in the proleptic gregorian calendar year 0 is > the beginning of counting the years. > > "The season implied by the 25th of December is inconsistent with that implied > by the Biblical narrative of Jesus's birth." > > I agree. The Biblical narrative of Jesus's birth was not the reason why that > date was chosen. The 25th of December was chosen for another reason. > > "The date almost certainly arose from pre-existing nature festivals > associated with the winter solstice, perhaps specifically Sol Invictus, into > which Christians merged their Nativity celebrations." > > It is also probable that December 25 was chosen because then New Year, > January 1, is the octave of Christmas. In the Old Testament tradition a great > feast is celebrated both on the first, and on the eight day, and the early > roman church probably wanted to continue that tradition with Christmas and > New Year day. And please note, that I am not promoting Christmas as a > remembrance of just the nativity. I am promoting Christmas as a remembrance > of the incarnation as the period from conception to ascension. The nativity > was of course an important part of the incarnation, but Christmas is also an > opportunity to remember other signs and miracles Jesus is worth remembering > for. > > "I don't see your GD system having any impact on religious calendar usage:the > churches are interested in years but not so much day counts. In any case, > your religious objectives here are irrelevant to astronomy and to the > definitions of technical time scales." > > I quoted this from Newcomb: "To avoid the inconvenience thus arising > astronomers measure the years from a zero epoch one year earlier than the > birth of Christ ; that is, they place a year before the year 1, and measure > from its beginning." Is it irrelevant that Newcomb wanted astronomers to > "measure from its [year 0s] beginning"? > > -Preben > > 2017-01-11 17:25 GMT+01:00 Zefram <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: > Preben Norager wrote: > >I see the proleptic gregorian calendar, represented by ISO 8601, and the > >GDs I propose, as a scientific way to settle the time of the incarnation. > > It doesn't do that. The birthdate of Jesus is a historical question, > and (as I noted) historians are pretty sure that AD 0 isn't the answer. > ISO 8601 takes no position on that question. > > By promoting the use of AD year numbering *for the reasons that you > (Preben) do*, you are effectively endorsing *Dionysius Exiguus's* > position on this question. If you get any more specific than he did, > for example if you state that Jesus was born specifically in AD 0, then > you're taking a position of your own on this question, a refinement of > Dionysius's position. > > (For clarity: people who promote the use of AD year numbering for other > reasons are usually not taking a position on Jesus. Especially so when > promoting it just because of the network effect.) > > >Christmas shall be a yearly remembrance of the incarnation. > > Going off on a bit of a tangent here: the season implied by the 25th of > December is inconsistent with that implied by the Biblical narrative of > Jesus's birth. The date almost certainly arose from pre-existing nature > festivals associated with the winter solstice, perhaps specifically Sol > Invictus, into which Christians merged their Nativity celebrations. > So it's certainly not an anniversary date, and as a date for annual > commemoration it lacks distinctiveness to the Christian usage. > > > Somehow I believe > >the proleptic gregorian calendar, and the GDs I propose, is the best way to > >settle the time of the incarnation, and unite east and west around the same > >calendar. > > I don't see your GD system having any impact on religious calendar usage: > the churches are interested in years but not so much day counts. In any > case, your religious objectives here are irrelevant to astronomy and to > the definitions of technical time scales. > > Commemorating events in human history is pretty low down the list of > priorities for people defining time scales. It does occasionally happen; > a recent example is the definition of Julian Sol (a Martian day count) > and matching epoch of the Darian calendar for Mars, which have their zero > slightly preceding the first telescopic observations of Mars. (It's a > combination of commemoration with arranging for relevant historical > records to all have non-negative dates.) But we really only do this > when we're otherwise completely devoid of a way to decide on an epoch. > We more often define time scales to maintain some kind of continuity > with existing time scales. In any case, the need for reference points > to be precisely defined and accessible takes precedence over almost all > other considerations. > > > But if you really care about the fundamental > >timescale of science and society, > > Even for civil use, continuity and the network effect are very strong > considerations, which often take precedence over a desire to commemorate > some event. This is a large part of why French Revolutionary year > numbering didn't catch on, for example. Caring about civil timekeeping > therefore doesn't come with much opportunity to change where the year > zero lies. > > > then I don't see how you can ignore the > >time of the incarnation. > > If we were to arbitrarily select a new epoch for civil timekeeping, in > a tabula rasa manner, then any epoch commemorating a religious figure > or event would actually be a pretty bad choice. Any such epoch would > be terribly divisive. (Look what happened with the religiously-derived > symbol of the Red Cross.) It would be far better to pick an epoch of > more culturally-neutral significance, or at least one whose significance > inflames less passion. The signing of the Metre Convention, as used as > a reference point by ISO 8601, would be a much better epoch, though some > would complain of it being slanted towards metrologists. > > -zefram > _______________________________________________ > LEAPSECS mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs > <https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs> > > _______________________________________________ > LEAPSECS mailing list > [email protected] > https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
