Idea About New Calendar

 
 
          IDEA ABOUT NEW CALENDAR


          © CHRIS MYRSKI, 2012

 
          _ _ _ 


     I think it is clear that our calendar has so many flaws, that it is high time to be changed, and for that reason I have heard that there were a big number of ideas (maybe hundreds, I don't know) for a new one. Well, I make my own idea, which I have given in one or two places, but here will evolve it in more details.
     This new calendar is SOLAR, i.e. it is tied to the Sun not to the Moon, what I think is long ago recognized to be the right approach. In addition to the year (the time for circling of the Earth around the Sun) it sets also on the day (the time for rotating of the Earth around its axis), and everything else (months, weeks, as well as hours, minutes and seconds) is different. Moreover, it is DECIMAL, i.e. wherever possible is used base 10 (not 12 or 60), what also is obvious for me, so that it is not excluded that I "reinvent the wheel", with some minimal modifications, but let me, still, explain the idea, because it might be that my additions are not so obvious for everyone, and however many propositions there are there is <not yet> a new calendar, so that, I suppose, the forum is open, so to say.

     1_. LONG INTERVALS (LONGER THAN A DAY)

     These, surely, are the months and the weeks. But firstly, WHERE SHOULD WE START, because our current calendar has somehow confused the things, for it sticks to some allegedly God, not to the Sun, and begins the year not from the right place, but somewhere around the point of the winter solstice. Well, in principle, when we have a cyclical process (how I have mentioned also in other places) there is not especially significant where we shall begin, but if we have suitable <good> reason for this, because the cycles of the seasons, i.e. the duration of shining of the Sun, and from there also of the temperature (for a given place and in the North hemisphere) is something like sinusoid, and it begins from the moment of transition through the zero (i.e., in our case, from the equality of the day with the night, on 22 of March); while our old calendar begins at nearly lower dead point (because till then was deadness, but now, after the new old God has been born, i.e. the Son, everything will blossom and flourish, yet it turns that only for half an year, for after this the things again worsen; in the South hemisphere, though, it happens that exactly in the beginning of the year the things start to worsen, it begins to cool). But if we begin from the point of spring or autumn equinox, then everywhere around the Earth this will be beginning, where the difference will be only in this whether it begins bettering or worsening of the weather (but, anyway, one can't please everybody, and in the northern hemisphere live more people, there is the biggest Eurasian continent).
     In any case, there is no need for many discussions on the question, it is quite clear that we must begin from <22 of March>, if only because such is the tradition, so begin all Zodiacs, and they come from ancient times. But if you ponder a bit about the months (which are Latin), and if we jump over the major part of them, where are put other ideas (I discuss this somewhere but let us not diverge here from the main topic), we will come to four consecutive months where in the beginning is one digit in Latin, and after this there is some trembling (because of the cold) "brr", i.e. I mean from September to December, where the September, quite obviously, must be seventh month (then the eighth is October, etc.), but it is with the number nine according to the present-day calendar. How you think, why the ancient people have made this mistake? Yeah, but they have made no mistakes, because if March is the first month, then you just count and will see that on seven you will come exactly to September, so that everything is clear (only that our Christ has messed the things).
     Now we come to the MONTHS, which, when we must have decimal calendar, have to be <ten>, there is no other way! Then 360 : 10 = <36>, so that the number of days in every month must be such, with small exceptions (because the days in the year are not exactly 360, they are even not 365 or 366, but come to so many) These 5 (or, resp., 6) days, because I don't think that we must change the additions for the leap years, they are good enough and we could hardly contrive something better (the number, anyway, isn't integer), we can disperse by one day to each even, or then odd, month, but I personally propose they to stay <in one week> (but what we shall see after a while) <in the end of the year>! And now, before to criticize the non-symmetry of both halves, remind yourself that in the old calendar they are not as possible symmetric, for it is not at all necessary for the February to have only 28 days — and why in February, ah? Because there (as if) the year ended, for this is the last month before March, so that this is one more reason for the actual beginning of the year.
     When all these additional days are put in one place they can be somehow ... not counted! Id est, they are something <additional>, what that, really, are, and can simply be taken for official holidays, for something given to us (by God, if you like it better so). It even becomes very good this, that they will never exceed the number six. This will turn to be important because now we come to the weeks, which will <not> have by 7 days. Why? There is very simple reason for this, because 36 is not divisible by seven, and it would have been nice if it were divisible. But it is divisible (and even twice) by 6, so that the new weeks (which in Bulgarian, by the way, are called "sevens", only the stressing is on another syllable), will be "<sextets>"! In this situation the additional days in the end of the year (Christmas holidays, if there will be Christmas, or just yearly holidays) will give one nearly full week, and in leap years — i.e. in such that are jumped higher than the others (and in Slavonic languages their name is translated as with higher bones) — this week will be exactly full. This is very good, because in this way each day of each month will correspond <in the same way> with one number of the "sextet" (the remainder of division of the number of days in month by modulus 6, said in mathematical language)! For example, 17.4 (in European standard, first the day and then the month) could have been written also as 5.3.4 (or v.v.), i.e. the 5th day, of the 3rd "sextet" of the 4th month.
     And now let us say something about their names. Well, if in some country people don't intend to rename them in their own way, I propose some universal English-French-Latin names, namely: onmon, dumon, tremon, fourmon, fifmon, sixmon, sevmon, achmon, ninemon, and tenmon, where they can be signified with digits, and even instead of from 1 to 10 we can mark them with 1 to 9 and then 0 (for the 10th month), in order to use one decimal position. Each month will have six groups or sextets, which will be called: ongroup, dugroup, tregroup, fourgroup, fifgroup, and sixgroup, with the exception of the last, tenmon, where will be also an exgroup, which prolongs it; in each group will be respectively six days, called: onday, duday, treday, fourday, fifday, and sixday.
     But in addition to the non-symmetry because of the exgroup, which concerns the half-year, is imposed one more asymmetry for the quarter-year, which can not consist now of three new months. Some may again hurry to object, but I think that it is not significant that there are not four equal seasons, for the simple reason that they, in fact, are <not> equal! Id est, the major and longer seasons are the summer and the winter, which can freely be counted by 3 new months, and the demi-seasons spring and autumn will be by 2 new months. Let us look what we have got, having in mind that 1 new month is 1 old month + 6 days. The year begins with the spring, which continues from 22.3 (onday, ongroup, onmonth) till (22.4 no, 22.5 no, but 12 days more, or, if we count all old months for 30 days, then to) 4.6. "old style" (what is onday, ongroup, tremon), I want to say that the latter is now the first day of the summer (and for the last day of the spring subtract one day); then follows the summer (till 36th fifmon, or the next season begins from the first sixmon, what means) till 22.9 "old style" (how it should have been expected); then is the autumn (in the northern hemi-sphere, of course) till 4.12; and then is the winter till 22.3 again "old "style".
     As you see, this is even better dividing in seasons, because the spring, really, ends to the end of May, June is already full summer, and even from the very beginning, and so until 22 of September, and the autumn continues, again really, till the beginning of December (or the end of November). If there are some alterations of the beginning, depending on the geographical latitude of the place, then they are symmetrical also in the end of the season, which either prolongs itself or shortens. Because, see, the Sun begins to shine longer on 22 of March in the current calendar, but this does not yet reflect on the temperature and affects it with a month and something delay, due to the inertness of heat transfer (which is quite a slow process), so that happens one proportional shifting of <all> seasons, and if they are taken for equal but are not such, then this will give distortions in all seasons (like, for example, on 22 of June the sun is the most stronger but this is wide away from the hottest time, which falls in the august month August), and if we make the seasons unequal, according to what I have said about the major and transitional seasons, then by an equal shifting we may find quite a good correspondence in the temperature, as it also happens, because the middle of the sinusoid for shining of the sun (the spring equinox) turns to be still quite near to the low dead point in regard of the temperature. In short, there will <not> be the obligatory dividing in four equal seasons (in view of statistics and reports, i.e. formally), but one natural dividing will exist on the base: 2, 3, 2, 3.
     Well, the lunar phases will not be marked, but they are missing also from the current calendar. And for those interesting in Zodiacs (because they, surely, will not disappear) will be provided small tables with the beginning days of each of them. ( By the way, let me remind you that the months as lunar ones, surely are <not> 12 in the year, they are with exactness of only one day <13>, i.e. 28 * 13 = 364, so that here the things are also adjusted, in order to be possible to divide the year, and if it is 360 days, by as many numbers as possible, i.e. by 2, 3, and 4, or by 12 )

     2_. SHORT INTERVALS (SHORTER THAN A DAY)

     Here we will be more concise, where it is clear, that in order to have decimal subdivisions of the day, we must make the whole day to have <10 hours by 100 minutes, each one by 100 seconds>. This makes 100,000 seconds instead of 24*60*60 = 86,400, so that the new second will be a bit shorter than the old, but in recompense of this the new minute will be about 1.5 times longer than the old (it will be 1/1000 of the day, while the old is 1/(24*60) = 1/1440 ), and the new hour will be 2.4 times longer. This, of course, is of no importance and is only a matter of habit, but it is simpler and more suitable to use everywhere the decimal system. Let us add also that here the counting begins again in the old manner, i.e. from 0 to 9 for the hours, or from 0 to 99 for the minutes and seconds. There will be possible to have one more division of 100 units (or then of 1000), as subdivision of the seconds, which parts ("tretunds", maybe?) will be given as fractional part of the seconds, because are so small that one will not be able to feel them and for that reason there is no need of special name for them, i.e. here is nothing new.

     3_. OTHER ADVANTAGES OF THE IDEA

     Look, here we will speak mainly about this <how much time we are to work>, because 6 is better to be divided, i.e. by 2 and by 3, while 7, in fact, is not divisible by whatever, it is prime number. A group of seven days was convenient only because this is part of the lunar month, but if you imagine that there were no Moon (and nowadays we don't pay much attention to it), or you live on another planet, or something of the kind, then there are no reasons for such divisions, where from a standpoint of dividing of <our time> 6 is in many aspects better — even before 5 (although we have not 6 fingers on our hands), because 5 is also prime number. So that, if we fly to another planet, then even there we may use sextet groups for dividing of the months, where the latter can be again 10, only that the sextets will not happen to fit integer times in the month, but even in this case we could again begin to count each month from onday-Monday, because so is quite suitable (and there will remain some part of the week as holidays, probably, but for the month).
     Yet let us consider now the working days. How much time we work, but as <part of the day>, because only it has remained on its place from the smaller divisions (as part of the year it is very twisted)? If the working week is 42 hours, but by so much time nowadays work almost nowhere (the people have no jobs, so that they wonder how <less> to work), then this gives 6 hours per day (42:7), or 6/24 of the day, i.e. 0.25, but if they work 35 hours (what is nearer to the normal situation, or at least to the desirable quite soon), then this gives 5 hours per day, or 5/24 of the day, i.e. 0.208333, what is about 21%. Well, if in the new six-days group we work <4 days by 3 hours> (new), or the same but reversed, i.e. 3 days by 4 new hours, i.e. 12 new hours, then this taken from 6*10 = 60 hours "sextetic" or "sixtetic", i.e. in the group, makes exactly 1/5 or 20%, what equals 34 hours today's working week. I personally think that this is just ideal perspective for quite near future (after 20 - 30 years).
     So, and if 1 new hour is 2.4 old hours (2 h and 24 min), then 3 new hours will be 7.2 old hours (7 h and 12 min), where 4 new hours will be now 9.6 old hours (9 h and 36 min). Well, 9 hours and a half is quite a long working day, but this if we have worked like now, 5 days out of 7, but if we work 3 days and rest 3 days this won't be so bad as it seems, where 4 days by nearly 7 hours daily, and after this 2 weekends (not 5 and then 2) is very good, isn't it? I want to say that it will be considered according to the nature of the work and/or the wish of people, but nowadays more and more activities turn to a kind of watches without much special pressure, and under the condition that thereafter one will rest exactly so many days as one has worked, this will be pretty good in increasing number of cases, because now, too, exist places where are given rosters even by 12 hours (and in my proposition they are less than 10), and then is rested for as much, and then again these duties, until come some days of rest. Some similar fifty-fifty dividing of the working week has existed earlier in Germany (and/or Russia, I have read it in some books), where the peasants (during the serfdom) have worked 3 days for their master and then 3 days for themselves, and on the seventh day have rested; only that now thew will work only 3 days and rest again so many days.
     What regards the schools then there, as also by more strenuous activities (in the healthcare, transportation, police, etc.), will be reduced working time of, say, 2.5 new (exactly 6 old) hours in 4 days out of 6. But there is another significant moment on which I would like to turn your attention: by one dividing in halves will be made possible for the people to ... sleep where they work! This is so elementary, that I don't know why nobody till now has pondered about these things, but there are no special problems, even just now, to make so that to every bigger enterprise (factory, big shop, or service) to be available some rooms for overnight stay, as well also a decent parking lot, where one can come with one's caravan and sleep in it. There are necessary also some service rooms, which, anyway, must be present in the big enterprises, and then it will turn out that if the people will work by 4 new hours, then they will have whole 6 hours more for rest, more than the half of the day. Everyone who has tried to work something at home, and now more and more activities become such that to be possible to perform them from the home by Internet, is convinced that there are no problems to work even by 12 current hours, the half of the time, a day, without much tiredness (because, for example, if he gets up at 7 he can begin to work at 8, rest a bit twice by half an hour, and 1 hour for lunch, or 2 hours altogether, to work pure 12 hours, and to finish at 10 in the evening, after what in 23 to lie down and sleep whole 8 hours; and here I speak only about 10 old hours, what is, as we say, "to work and to sing".
     By this situation the school students can quite easily be mainly <on board>, for 3 days out of 6, as also their parents (or at least one of their parents, because two parents in one place are now hardly to be met), or else to go to school or college or university only one day in the group of six days, for classroom courses, and the other time to study before their computers. As you see, the dividing in half is quite fitting thing. And this not only for the work, no, this will economize also time <for transport>, and it is not at all little nowadays — by averagely 1 hour there and 1 back (and in many cases, in the big megapolises, it is at least with 50% more), four unnecessary times in the current week, this gives 2*4=8 hours, or 1/3 of a day (and even to 1/2 and more in some cases) just thrown to the wind. Add to this also the economy of fuel, which in not only money, it is also ... clean air, less need of energy, so that the effect, in my view, will be enormous (and in spite of this, as far as I know, only in some police departments exist rest rooms for the staff, and this with 5 to 10 times less beds than the people working in one shift).

     4_. WHEN TO BEGIN?

     Well, we have missed the beginning of millennium, and it was the best moment. We can wait till the next century, but it is quite away from now, where my idea can be applied literally starting from tomorrow — surely, after some years of considering and preparation. But, having pondered a bit about the things, I came to the conclusion that this moment of transition, ... hmm, it <isn't important> at all, we can do it starting at what only year we want, from 22 of March (best of all, but even this is not obligatory), only ... <backdated>, of course! In other words, when will be decided that we will go to this calendar, are just to be <recalculated all important dates after 22.Mar.2000> (of birth, marriages, etc.) by one pretty simple procedure (calculating first the consecutive number of the day from the beginning of the old <year>, subtracting from it the days before 22 Mar, if this is possible, and then the received number is divided by modulus 36, where the fractional part gives the new day of the month, and the integer part + 1 gives the new month; if there goes about days before 22 Mar then is added the exact number of days from 22 Mar last year till its end, and is proceeded in the same way as above, only that the year will be with 1 less). In this situation I would propose, say, the year 2020 as the nearest and suitable for this purpose, but dated back from the year 2000, as I said.
     And the last moment: where, i.e. in what country, or continent? Well, most properly would be to do this transition all over the world at once, but it can freely be done also in one bigger country or union, commonwealth (only in a small country like Bulgaria this will look funny). After all, different calendars exist, they are used in parallel (like the degrees of Celsius and Fahrenheit for the temperature), so that this should not make any difficulty. Besides, there are no problems for 5 or 10 years to use in parallel both, the new and the old dates. There are no problems, except the desire of people, what, as the social practice shows, is reduced to exceedingly high inertness of the big groups of people, where the problem is not in the inventing of a new and better solution, but <in the rejecting of the old> (and worse) one. I, personally, remember that the introduction of the unified system of weights and measures, SI, on its time, was not a small problem for many countries (like, say, England, where people and vehicles still move on the wrong side of the street), but under a good organization of the things and conviction in the appropriateness of the change, this proposition is wholly realizable, as I said, from tomorrow.

     October 2012


          _ _ _ _ _