Re: Calendrical centering

Robert Grumbine wrote:
In article <e265in$gvn$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbryant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, bobg@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Grumbine) wrote:

For calender centering, it'd be nice to have something which can
be unambiguously dated with precision. Below are a few that came
to mind (and brief search).

Detonation of the first A-bomb July 16, 1945
Supernova (Crab Nebula) 1054
June 15, 763 BC (Assyrian Eclipse)
May 3, 1375 BC (Ugarit Eclipse, may be 1223 BC instead)
End of the Younger Dryas 11,530 BP (+- maybe 50, but we can
pick any particular ice layer from the Greenland cores for
the reference point)

Other candidates?

I'm a traditionalist; I prefer dating from the foundation of Rome,
the first Olympiad, or the Trojan war.

The other side of my brain suggests getting rid of the negative side
altogether, and reckon time as the local elapsed time since the big
bang. (Divide by various numbers to get years or other epochs.)

That's a reason I like the end of the Younger Dryas as a zero point.
It predates static agriculture, writing, and a population boom in
humans.

I like Bobby's suggestion of making the big bang the calendar's zero
point. After all, the most useful temperature unit in science has
absolute zero as its zero point.

Also, the time units shouldn't be so geocentric, considering we might
not always be on this planet. We should just use seconds and SI
prefixes. That is, the current date and time might be 420 petaseconds
and change. These units should then hold us until the end of the solar
system at least.

Of course, there are downsides. Relativistic effects make universal
timekeeping difficult. Digital watches would need to carry 18 digits,
and if the universe ever turns 1 exasecond old, requiring 19 digits,
the trouble that would cause might make the Y2K conversion seem tame.
Moreover, the setting of today's current time lacks a bit of precision,
perhaps causing one to be a gigasecond or two late for a meeting. Not
that that's a bad thing. :)
--
Mark

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to increase Working Precision?
    ... I don't get credit for letting "generally outstanding" slip by? ... and 9.95, with three correct digits. ... It printed as zero because it ... is deemed to have too little precision to print otherwise ...
    (sci.math.symbolic)
  • Re: Singles to Doubles
    ... In internal promotion from lower precision to higher, there isn't any information as to what the missing decimal digits should be -- that they should be zero is only one of a large set of possible values. ... The way to force that in any modern language I'm familiar with is essentially what we've been discussing here...make a decimal representation that looks like the number you want and then let the i/o routines read that in, doing the hard work of converting its internal representation to match as closely as possible. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Calendrical centering
    ... Detonation of the first A-bomb July 16, ... That's a reason I like the end of the Younger Dryas as a zero point. ... Digital watches would need to carry 18 digits, ... Moreover, the setting of today's current time lacks a bit of precision, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How do I stop Excel from changing last digit in a number entry?
    ... Excel can only show up to 15 digits of precision, ... changes the last digit to a zero. ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.newusers)
  • Re: Universe PRECISION vs everyone else...
    ... And you can avoid the whole precision problem by doing all calculations ... Back in our early UniVerse days, some of our users in NT4 ... struck the zero not equal to zero problem and we were advised to ... decided to run all our Universe programs with no decimals at all...hope ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
Loading