Over at BadEagle.com Dr. Yeagley posts a whole laundry-list of personal negatives attending the use of the Gregorian calendar. I, of course, come at it from a different perspective. For one thing, I'm not personally inclined to believe that "easy" is always the best route to take. Taking the path of least resistance is sometimes the best way, but not always. But when you boil it all down, and as I said to Dr. Yeagley in my initial comment to the entry, the Gregorian calendar ain't that difficult to understand. Here's a good Wikipedia article on the benefits of the Gregorian calendar.
Also, there is a close correlation between distance and time. While Dr. Yeagley complains that I invoke our consistency in applying the Gregorian method to angular measurements on the surface of the globe, I think the comparison is legitimate because, as I said, there is a close correlation between distance and time. We also project the artificial divisions of the surface of our planet onto the celestial sphere. This enables us to detect and measure certain anomalies such as Precession. (Scroll up the page to read the full article.)
Terry, I certainly agree that there is little difficulty with the Gregorian calendar if one has a reasonable education from an early age.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I forget all the details, I seem to recall that the Gregorian calendar was an adjustment to the Julian calendar in use previously and still used in Eastern Orthodox for liturgical purposes. This is the reason that the Orthodox usaually wind us celebrating Easter at a time different from the West, because they make the entire calculation differently from the West.
Terry, I have an idea that I would like to discuss with you. Would you contact me, please, at DrD_Dbq@yahoo.com? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteTerry, you can file this under "Things We Never Wanted To Know", but every time somebody mentions the Gregorian calendar, I am thinking of the German historian Herbert Illig who delivered a theory, the "phantom time hypothesis", stating that the Franconian Empire post Chlodwig I. and the following 300 years are nothing but a figment, and that there is no physical proof that Charlemagne ever existed. The theory is based on the dearth of archaeological evidence that can be reliably dated, the shortcomings of radiometric and dendrochronological methods of dating, the over-reliance of medievalists on written sources -- and the traps of the Gregorian calendar. Because Illig's work has never been translated it has received little attention in English-speaking countries.
ReplyDeleteOne of his colleagues summarizes the theory briefly here.
Someone needs to introduce Terry to "Indian-Time".
ReplyDeleteJ.Kills Straight
Santee, Sioux
Mr. Morris is presently dealing with occupied time as he has been too busy to respond to posts. I'm sure he will have appropriate responses when he is able to squeeze a few minutes to do so out of his schedule.
ReplyDeleteMom, what is "occupied time"? Is that something on the Gregorian calendar?
ReplyDeleteNo, Dr. D, It's time occupied with making a living and fulfilling his familial obligations. In other words-he's just really busy and hasn't had time to blog. I'm sure he'll be back in the game when time permits. :)
ReplyDeleteOff topic: Terry, I have a new computer and lost all my contact data because I am too stupid to retrieve email addresses, notes, etc. from Outlook. Would you be kind enough to mail me to editrix@editrixoffice com, so that I have yours again?
ReplyDeleteBest regards
Nora