The radical plan to destroy time zones

[dcbjms]

One thing I think is interesting is that these guys don't care about syncing the day with the sun but still care about syncing the year with the seasons.  If you're gonna get rid of one, might as well get rid of both.

Yeah, I noticed that too.  There's a crank that has his own website, which I admittedly follow, known as "The Order of Time", and one of his big things is readjusting the calendar to make it more regular in part by syncing it with the sun.  Part of it involves a switch to solar time; in part because of that, and due to the geography of my area of New England, I've adjusted the time zone on my computer (well, when it works 90% of the time - it currently has a fan problem, which I'm going to initially solve by blowing canned air hopefully without taking the whole thing apart) to the new Venezuelan time zone (UTC-4½) since it matches the longitude for Rhode Island and Eastern Massachusetts.  So my computer is on standard time year round, with no DST.  Whether that works or not remains to be seen.

[hotdogPi]

(UTC-4½) since it matches the longitude for Rhode Island and Eastern Massachusetts.

Where I live (UTC-5), solar noon is 11:49 AM. No need to change.

[MikeTheActuary]

I see the argument for everyone using UTC as being just a rather extreme extension of my complaint about the change between standard and daylight saving time: it's incredibly arrogant and inefficient for man to change the clock to suit his needs, rather than changing his schedule to match reality.  (For example, rather than fuss about children waiting outside in the dark for their school bus as justification for changing back to standard time, why not just change school start times?)

Does it really matter whether I set my wake-up alarm to 0500 EST or 1000 UTC?    I don't see a big problem with lunchtime being 1700 UTC rather than 1200 EST.

That being said, having the calendar day change during business hours around the Pacific would, I think, be a bit of a headache for practical adoption of such a scheme.  It's not that big a deal in those environments where widely-dispersed operations already result in folks standardizing on UTC, but for nontechnical conversational purposes, terms like "today" and "tomorrow" become potentially ambiguous if the calendar day changes around high noon, at tea-time, etc.

[kkt]

I see the argument for everyone using UTC as being just a rather extreme extension of my complaint about the change between standard and daylight saving time: it's incredibly arrogant and inefficient for man to change the clock to suit his needs, rather than changing his schedule to match reality.  (For example, rather than fuss about children waiting outside in the dark for their school bus as justification for changing back to standard time, why not just change school start times?)

Does it really matter whether I set my wake-up alarm to 0500 EST or 1000 UTC?    I don't see a big problem with lunchtime being 1700 UTC rather than 1200 EST.

That being said, having the calendar day change during business hours around the Pacific would, I think, be a bit of a headache for practical adoption of such a scheme.  It's not that big a deal in those environments where widely-dispersed operations already result in folks standardizing on UTC, but for nontechnical conversational purposes, terms like "today" and "tomorrow" become potentially ambiguous if the calendar day changes around high noon, at tea-time, etc.

We don't just change school start times because then it would be just one thing happening in isolation.  Many other things have to change as well.  For instance, before-school and after-school care is often independent of the schools and would need to change their times in coordination.  How long kids need to be in before or after school care will be determined by their parents' work schedules, so they would also need to change in coordination.  City or county bus systems often take older kids to and from school, so their schedules would need to adjust in coordination.  Then there's places like grocery stores that plan for their busiest hour between 5 and 6 PM for people picking things up on the way home, they'd have to adjust their staff schedules.  We could change all those things individually, but it ends up easier to change the clocks for everyone at the same time, at least for people in the temperate latitudes.

[vdeane]

One thing I think is interesting is that these guys don't care about syncing the day with the sun but still care about syncing the year with the seasons.  If you're gonna get rid of one, might as well get rid of both.

I lost patience before I logically considered all the implications of their calendar, as most people would, but if there are something like six years between adjustment "mini-months," won't the calendar drift off the seasons periodically?

I doubt a week is enough to be noticeable against typical weather variations.  After all, the original point of syncing the calendar with the seasons had nothing to do with astronomy - it was so that crops wouldn't be planted in January.

[brycecordry]

My only wish is that the time zones would be more aligned to where they actually should go on the map. Oh...yeah-and that the DOTs sign the time zone boundaries (unlike Indiana)

Other than that, they should keep up their good work! :-)

[Pete from Boston]

One thing I think is interesting is that these guys don't care about syncing the day with the sun but still care about syncing the year with the seasons.  If you're gonna get rid of one, might as well get rid of both.

I lost patience before I logically considered all the implications of their calendar, as most people would, but if there are something like six years between adjustment "mini-months," won't the calendar drift off the seasons periodically?

I doubt a week is enough to be noticeable against typical weather variations.  After all, the original point of syncing the calendar with the seasons had nothing to do with astronomy - it was so that crops wouldn't be planted in January.

You lost me.  People plant when the calendar does or doesn't start? 

[CNGL-Leudimin]

While we are at it, could we agree an universal start to the week? I find calendars that start the weeks at Sunday confusing, given that I'm used to the week starting Monday. After all, Sunday is part of the weekend, and thus placing it at the end of the week instead of the start (as most of the world does) would make more sense.

[jeffandnicole]

While we are at it, could we agree an universal start to the week? I find calendars that start the weeks at Sunday confusing, given that I'm used to the week starting Monday. After all, Sunday is part of the weekend, and thus placing it at the end of the week instead of the start (as most of the world does) would make more sense.

At least in that case, you can purchase calendars that start on Monday. 

[Pete from Boston]

Try doing your shopping at multiple grocery stores that can't agree whether to start weekly sales on Friday, Saturday or Sunday (not to mention one national upscale chain that runs their organic specials on cycles like Wednesday to Tuesday and Friday to Monday).

[vdeane]

One thing I think is interesting is that these guys don't care about syncing the day with the sun but still care about syncing the year with the seasons.  If you're gonna get rid of one, might as well get rid of both.

I lost patience before I logically considered all the implications of their calendar, as most people would, but if there are something like six years between adjustment "mini-months," won't the calendar drift off the seasons periodically?

I doubt a week is enough to be noticeable against typical weather variations.  After all, the original point of syncing the calendar with the seasons had nothing to do with astronomy - it was so that crops wouldn't be planted in January.

You lost me.  People plant when the calendar does or doesn't start? 

I believe that was one of the reasons the Julian calendar was invented.  As far as I (and every single other person who lives in the northern hemisphere) is concerned, January means "winter".  I don't give a crap what the astronomical seasons are, but I would definitely have a problem if it started snowing in July.

Don't forget that agriculture is the reason calendars were invented.  Not astronomy.

[Pete from Boston]

The year started in March until 1752, right?  I always thought that made the most sense, since there is no beginning of anything happening up here in January. 

[Big John]

The year started in March until 1752, right?  I always thought that made the most sense, since there is no beginning of anything happening up here in January. 

The calendar started in January in the Julian calendar.  A confusion is when Caesar inserted July and August for himself as September through December literally mean 7th month through 10th month.

[Duke87]

While we are at it, could we agree an universal start to the week? I find calendars that start the weeks at Sunday confusing, given that I'm used to the week starting Monday. After all, Sunday is part of the weekend, and thus placing it at the end of the week instead of the start (as most of the world does) would make more sense.

This is one of those things that, like the format for writing the date, is always going to vary from culture to culture. The practice of showing Sunday as the first day of the week (which is certainly standard in the US) is likely rooted in Saturday being the "seventh day" that god rested on in the biblical creation story.

It's worth noting that which days are the standard days off is not universal, either. Many Muslim cultures observe a weekend of Friday and Saturday, with Sunday as the first day of the work week.

The idea of a two day weekend itself only came into being as a result of industrialization and subsequent labor movements. In agrarian societies, even as late as the early 20th century, there was generally only one day a week (Friday for Muslims, Saturday for Jews, Sunday for Christians) where people did not work.

[english si]

Julius changed the start date of the year from Fall to Winter (by adding two months, totalling 67 days, between Nov and Dec 46BC as a one off as the calendar shifted)*. Those two months, that one year, were the only months he added - July and August are just renaming existing months that happened later (though July was named after Julius in 44BC, after his death, so there was only one year post-Julian reform with Quintilis. And maybe August was there in the second year of the new calendar - Augustus' ego made him the first emperor - a title that even his adoptive father wouldn't dare claim, after all).

The idea that the calendar started in March was earlier Roman ('Romulus' creating a 10 month calender with months 11 and 12 being Jan/Feb added by one of the early kings not long after in the 7th century BC) calendar, but got shifted to begin at January at same point well before Julius came on the scene - maybe even the reform that gave 12 months (ie dumping them at the beginning not the end) - it's very unclear when.

*IIRC, he also changed the start of the day from sunset to midnight.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

I decided to readopt 'Quintilis' as a month just in the case a Southern hemisphere tropical cyclone lasts beyond June 30th in order to avoid having two months named July in the same 'tropical year' (This happened last year when 'Tropical Storm' Raquel formed on June 30th). Similarly, I've adopted 'Undecimber' for the Northern hemisphere, so I have recorded Tropical Storm ζ (Zeta) as lasting until Undecimber 6th, 2005 (i.e. January 2006).

IIRC they changed the start of the calendar from March to January during the conquest of Hispania (present day Spain) in late 3rd century or early 2nd century BC due to a revolt, so they could send new consuls.

[Pete from Boston]

The year started in March until 1752, right?  I always thought that made the most sense, since there is no beginning of anything happening up here in January. 

The calendar started in January in the Julian calendar.  A confusion is when Caesar inserted July and August for himself as September through December literally mean 7th month through 10th month.

I looked up what I was thinking about, and being of the United States, I automatically assumed what happens here applies to the whole world.

Here, as in all the British Empire, the year did indeed start on March 25 for 600 years until 1752.  Thus, March 24, 1731 was followed by March 25, 1732.  While we today say George Washington was born in 1732, in the reality of his time and birthplace he was born in February of 1731, a month or so before 1732 began.

[freebrickproductions]

While we are at it, could we agree an universal start to the week? I find calendars that start the weeks at Sunday confusing, given that I'm used to the week starting Monday. After all, Sunday is part of the weekend, and thus placing it at the end of the week instead of the start (as most of the world does) would make more sense.

I don't mind having Sunday at the beginning of the week. Since Saturday and Sunday are the two weekend days, they are likewise located at the two ends of the week: the beginning end and the ending end.
But then again, I am American, and we do have the weeks start on Sunday here, so me just not wanting to change is probably playing into that a good bit.

[Pete from Boston]

While we are at it, could we agree an universal start to the week? I find calendars that start the weeks at Sunday confusing, given that I'm used to the week starting Monday. After all, Sunday is part of the weekend, and thus placing it at the end of the week instead of the start (as most of the world does) would make more sense.

I don't mind having Sunday at the beginning of the week. Since Saturday and Sunday are the two weekend days, they are likewise located at the two ends of the week: the beginning end and the ending end.
But then again, I am American, and we do have the weeks start on Sunday here, so me just not wanting to change is probably playing into that a good bit.

My mental calendar doesn't really happen on a grid, so it makes almost no difference to me where Sunday goes on a piece of paper.  I also don't often need to talk about discrete weeks that aren't just Monday to Friday.

[mgk920]

One thing I think is interesting is that these guys don't care about syncing the day with the sun but still care about syncing the year with the seasons.  If you're gonna get rid of one, might as well get rid of both.

I lost patience before I logically considered all the implications of their calendar, as most people would, but if there are something like six years between adjustment "mini-months," won't the calendar drift off the seasons periodically?

I doubt a week is enough to be noticeable against typical weather variations.  After all, the original point of syncing the calendar with the seasons had nothing to do with astronomy - it was so that crops wouldn't be planted in January.

You lost me.  People plant when the calendar does or doesn't start? 

I believe that was one of the reasons the Julian calendar was invented.  As far as I (and every single other person who lives in the northern hemisphere) is concerned, January means "winter".  I don't give a crap what the astronomical seasons are, but I would definitely have a problem if it started snowing in July.

Don't forget that agriculture is the reason calendars were invented.  Not astronomy.

The Julian calendar was devised so that early Christians would have an accurate measure of when to celebrate Easter.  The currently used Gregorian calendar corrected an error in the Julian calendar, which most Orthodox Christians churches still use.

Mike

[dcbjms]

One thing I think is interesting is that these guys don't care about syncing the day with the sun but still care about syncing the year with the seasons.  If you're gonna get rid of one, might as well get rid of both.

I lost patience before I logically considered all the implications of their calendar, as most people would, but if there are something like six years between adjustment "mini-months," won't the calendar drift off the seasons periodically?

I doubt a week is enough to be noticeable against typical weather variations.  After all, the original point of syncing the calendar with the seasons had nothing to do with astronomy - it was so that crops wouldn't be planted in January.

You lost me.  People plant when the calendar does or doesn't start? 

I believe that was one of the reasons the Julian calendar was invented.  As far as I (and every single other person who lives in the northern hemisphere) is concerned, January means "winter".  I don't give a crap what the astronomical seasons are, but I would definitely have a problem if it started snowing in July.

Don't forget that agriculture is the reason calendars were invented.  Not astronomy.

The Julian calendar was devised so that early Christians would have an accurate measure of when to celebrate Easter.  The currently used Gregorian calendar corrected an error in the Julian calendar, which most Orthodox Christians churches still use.

Mike

Makes one wonder if things would have been different if the modern Hebrew calendar was used instead, since Easter traditionally happens at the same time as Passover.

[Pete from Boston]

Easter is supposed to be on the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21 (the equinox, roughly).  Wikipedia tells us Easter was happening later and later in the solar year, so the Gregorian calendar aimed to realign it with its traditional time.  I don't know when March 21 became the equinox (roughly), but the Gregorian calendar ensures, arbitrarily, that the equinoxes and solstices now always happen on or about the 21st of their respective months.

[vdeane]

The Julian calendar was devised so that early Christians would have an accurate measure of when to celebrate Easter.  The currently used Gregorian calendar corrected an error in the Julian calendar, which most Orthodox Christians churches still use.

Mike

Technically the Julian Calendar was developed LONG before Christianity was the religion of Rome.

Easter is supposed to be on the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21 (the equinox, roughly).  Wikipedia tells us Easter was happening later and later in the solar year, so the Gregorian calendar aimed to realign it with its traditional time.  I don't know when March 21 became the equinox (roughly), but the Gregorian calendar ensures, arbitrarily, that the equinoxes and solstices now always happen on or about the 21st of their respective months.

Makes sense... while one wouldn't notice a week or two shift with respect to the weather, if it was going to be a late Easter that year anyways and the shift puts it in May, THAT would be noticed.

Still don't know why Easter is defined with lunar cycles instead of solar cycles.

[jeffandnicole]

Still don't know why Easter is defined with lunar cycles instead of solar cycles.

I still don't know why Easter just doesn't have a specific date. And why is it always on Sunday? Compared to
Jesus' birth, which is observed on the same date every year which falls on random days of the week..

[jwolfer]

Still don't know why Easter is defined with lunar cycles instead of solar cycles.

I still don't know why Easter just doesn't have a specific date. And why is it always on Sunday? Compared to
Jesus' birth, which is observed on the same date every year which falls on random days of the week..

Based on the Jewish calandar. The last supper was the Passover Seder.  It is around Passover. So the date was known. Jesus birth was never specified. It was probably in the springtime when sheppards would have been in the field The Roman Church picked 12/25 to coincide with the Roman festival of Saturnalia.

Interesting how the major Christian holidays are right around the solstice.