Marcus Wolfe Posted March 23, 2008 Author Share Posted March 23, 2008 I do believe that there are twelve full moons in a year, so it's a ROUGH lunar calender.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninja_lord666 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I do believe that there are twelve full moons in a year, so it's a ROUGH lunar calender....No, the moon cycles take about four weeks, and there are 52 weeks in a year, so there are 13 full moons in a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Wolfe Posted March 23, 2008 Author Share Posted March 23, 2008 funny you say that........when they want us to calculate monthly earnings in careers class at school, they say we multiply the weekly earnings by 4, and multiply that by 12 to get the annual earnings. But that's only 48 weeks worth, and as you said, there are 52 weeks in a year, so really we should be multiplying by 13. It's things like that that got me thinking that there must be a better possible calender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KzinistZerg Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Well, all I can say is that it might make more sense to have thirteen months of four weeks each; fit the leap-year day in there at the end and make it a holiday. But so long as we provide that we're going by the sun, I see no real reason to try to fit everything in. Once we get into space, then maybe we can star messing around with the space-calendar. The calendar, you see, is not arbitrary. It IS based off of something. Take that away, and we can then mess with it to our heart's content; right now the claendar would still make sense... EVEN IF WE HAD NO CLOCKS. You can still count days, can't you? Hours and minutes are less than necessary. Seasons are a good way of indicating years. If you wanted, you could count the 13 full moons for thirteen months, for harvesting and planting schedules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecalMirror Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 it would only be chaos for a little while though. the current calendar only works because we make it work. personally, i cannot even remember the order of the months in our current calendar system. i think that wolfe's system would be much easier to do. but then again, we have to do something about the leap year... an extra one day month for the leap year day? haha. sounds like a party time to me :)Hell yeah it works only because we make it work, but tell me a calender system that doesn't. Ok, we could just count days from 1 to 365 and so on, but seriously? Nope. Our current calendar is inaccurate. A year is roughly 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds long, not 365 days and 6 hours, as the Gregorian calendar follows.Well, you're right about its inaccuracy. Despite of that minor flaw it works perfectly, however. Or have you ever had any problems caused only by the current system and would have not been happened with some other? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Wolfe Posted March 23, 2008 Author Share Posted March 23, 2008 hmmm............perhaps in the future, we will measure time based on the activity of atoms/atomic particles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo man Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 hmmm............perhaps in the future, we will measure time based on the activity of atoms/atomic particles...What exactly do you mean by that? An example would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Wolfe Posted March 24, 2008 Author Share Posted March 24, 2008 Well, have you ever heard of carbon dating? I'm suggesting that we could measure time based on how long it took atoms of certain substances to decay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Well, have you ever heard of carbon dating? I'm suggesting that we could measure time based on how long it took atoms of certain substances to decay.Carbon dating isn't a definite measure. And technically we already have clocks based on particle activity... Or havn't you heard of atomic clocks? They do however use the current time standard as comparison, and are still subject to the slowdown that occurs when moving really fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo man Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Or havn't you heard of atomic clocks? They do however use the current time standard as comparison, and are still subject to the slowdown that occurs when moving really fast.Yeah I've heard of them, but i've never understood how they work.(reading up on them in wikipedia now ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.