A political note from Simon
re: Lars' & $Bill's concerns over Elements of Calendar Reform:

> From:   Lars Osterdahl
> Subject:        Re: Elements of Calendar Reform
> [snip]
> To change the minds of the priests/mullahs etc
> is probably as big a task as to slow down the earth.

The Vatican can't have been too upset at Gordon Moyer (Sci.Am. May
1982) for villifying Pope Gregory XIII. They subsequently had him for
tea (and photo ops. with the Holy Father) during his participation in
their conference commemorating 400 years of Gregory's calendar! Thus
I am confident that the  new Common Era Leap Year Decision Procedure
(which quietly and with little fuss removes Gregory XIII from the
calendar picture) would receive no opposition from those priestly
quarters (and only Bermuda need make any overt fuss over Dee's role).

Lutherans and Protestants in general should welcome a return to
secular governance of the calendar (if for instance the U.S. and
U.K. were to take the initiative).

The mullahs (of Iran) should be chuffed that their boy Omar Khayyam
(AL-Khayyami) will finally be vindicated as to the 33-year cycle and
might even take the opportunity to diplomatically acknowledge some
promise in the attitude of the "Great American Satan".

Similarily the Orthodox priesthoods can celebrate the victory of
the sensible proposals of Patriarch N'amat allah, while he was
the only Oriental representative on Gregory XIII's commission.

All these favorable political circumstances would likely devolve
upon a Calendar Reform Proposal that included the 33-year new
Common Era Leap Year Decision Procedure.

$Bill is apparently concerned about the astronomy as follows:

> Here I would like to again tout Isaac Asimov's idea of omitting 11
> scheduled Leap Years to move the year's beginning back to the Winter
> Solstice.
>[snip]
> Can someone tell me why it is important to have the Vernal Equinox fall on
> exactly the same date each year as proposed by those advocating the 33 year
> leap year rule.  What's the problem with Equinox and Soltice dates varying
> a day or so from year to year.  And if they ever slipped permanently out of
> approximate sync., couldn't a Leap Year just be added or dropped to correct
> this ?

$Bill appears to be advocating a year synched observationally to the Winter
Solstice (which he and Asimov appear to believe should correspond to
"New-Years" eve-day).

My point is that observationally based calendars are not "perpetual" and that
a rule-based solar calendar can best follow the underlying astronomy by using
the simple and natural 33-year-cycle of the time-of-day of the instant of the
Vernal-Equinox. The Winter Solstice does not have such a nicely integral, and
relatively constant, fit.

If we are not concerned with the exact astronomy then we should return to the
Ancient Egyptian or Mayan solar calendar structuree with all years being 365
days long.

But, if we are going to have leap days, then we ought to do the best we
can at postponing the day that observation contradicts our leap-year rule.
Astronomers over the last centuries have surreptitiously tried to hijack the
Gregorian calendar by brainwashing us into believing that its goal was to
stay in synch with their mean longitude of the sun. Clavius made it clear
that the goal was to stabilize the Vernal Equinox. Instead of reacting to
Clavius' religious and political affiliations astronomers would do better to
take him at his word and do a better job than he did at stabilizing the
Vernal Equinox (which has many other good reasons for being the reference
point in addition to the Christian Easter considerations).

--
Dee's Yrs, Simon Cassidy, 1053 47th.St. Emeryville Ca.94608. ph.510-547-0684.