It's official. They are in a different time zone....

Happy New Year martians !!!

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 9:50:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
It's official. They are in a different time zone....

Happy New Year martians !!!

+1

I am wondering how this works. In these politically correct times, instead of AD (Anno Domini - Year of Our Lord), we have CE (common era). Ignoring what becomes "Year 1" and why, the Martian Year is 687 (earth) days.

So, 2018/4 = number of leap-years. (504.5). Round to 505 for a number of reasons.

Now, ((2018 x 365) + 505)/687 = number of Martian years. Or: 1072, about mid-October. Nothing quite yet the "New Year". Note that this is using earth-standard days. Martian standard days are 1:40, or 1480 minutes.

Starting Over: ((2018 x 365 x 24 x 60) + (505 x 24 x 60))/1480 gives us the number of Martian days involved. Comes to a little later in October of 1043. Months are named arbitrarily by dividing the Martian year into 12 segments assigning the same Earth-month name to that part of the cycle.

In any case, the actual Martian New Year is a movable feast, and in 2017, was celebrated on May 5,in Mars, Pennsylvania (where else?). The next one will be +/- March 3 of 2019.

Now, I will leave it to others to calculate the same for the Chinese, Korean, Islamic, Jewish, Orthodox, Indian, Aztec, et. al. as they see fit. All God's Creatures have a place in the Choir - even Martians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHayfrUIJDM About 4 minutes in.

Happy New Year!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On 01/01/18 02:48, wrote:
It's official. They are in a different time zone....

Happy New Year martians !!!


https://www.ted.com/talks/nagin_cox_..._is_it_on_mars

--
Adrian C

wrote on 1/1/2018 9:05 AM:
I am wondering how this works. In these politically correct times, instead of AD (Anno Domini - Year of Our Lord), we have CE (common era). Ignoring what becomes "Year 1" and why, the Martian Year is 687 (earth) days.

Why do you call this "politically correct"? It's an issue of mixing
religion and science. The new terms were chosen to separate a single
religion from having defined notation for a scientific purpose. How is that
a matter of "political correctness"?

I have found the only time this term is used is when someone wants to
criticize something as being "politically correct" as if that automatically
makes it undesirable without actually discussing the facts.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 4:42:59 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
wrote on 1/1/2018 9:05 AM:
I am wondering how this works. In these politically correct times, instead of AD (Anno Domini - Year of Our Lord), we have CE (common era). Ignoring what becomes "Year 1" and why, the Martian Year is 687 (earth) days.

Why do you call this "politically correct"? It's an issue of mixing
religion and science. The new terms were chosen to separate a single
religion from having defined notation for a scientific purpose. How is that
a matter of "political correctness"?

William of Occam figured (at least) this out a few centuries ago. Full Stop.


I have found the only time this term is used is when someone wants to
criticize something as being "politically correct" as if that automatically
makes it undesirable without actually discussing the facts.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

On 1/1/18 4:22 PM, wrote:
William of Occam figured (at least) this out a few centuries
ago. Full Stop.

Pearls before swine.

--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

On 01/01/2018 05:36 PM, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
On 1/1/18 4:22 PM, wrote:
William of Occam figured (at least) this out a few centuries
ago. Full Stop.

Pearls before swine.


Nothing annoyed Christ more than feeling like he wasn't being given
enough attention. Imagine if he'd had access to Twitter

On 2/01/2018 1:05 AM, wrote:
I am wondering how this works. In these politically correct times, instead of AD (Anno Domini - Year of Our Lord), we have CE (common era). Ignoring what becomes "Year 1" and why, the Martian Year is 687 (earth) days.

So, 2018/4 = number of leap-years. (504.5). Round to 505 for a number of reasons.

Now, ((2018 x 365) + 505)/687 = number of Martian years. Or: 1072, about mid-October. Nothing quite yet the "New Year". Note that this is using earth-standard days. Martian standard days are 1:40, or 1480 minutes.

Starting Over: ((2018 x 365 x 24 x 60) + (505 x 24 x 60))/1480 gives us the number of Martian days involved. Comes to a little later in October of 1043. Months are named arbitrarily by dividing the Martian year into 12 segments assigning the same Earth-month name to that part of the cycle.

In any case, the actual Martian New Year is a movable feast, and in 2017, was celebrated on May 5,in Mars, Pennsylvania (where else?). The next one will be +/- March 3 of 2019.

Now, I will leave it to others to calculate the same for the Chinese, Korean, Islamic, Jewish, Orthodox, Indian, Aztec, et. al. as they see fit. All God's Creatures have a place in the Choir - even Martians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHayfrUIJDM About 4 minutes in.

Happy New Year!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


**Should we not be counting time from the initial event (aka: The Big
Bang)? Or, perhaps, as fundamentalist Christians would have it, some
6,000 years ago?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In article ,
says...

William of Occam figured (at least) this out a few centuries ago. Full
Stop.

Was that the paradox of the barber who shaved everyone who didn't shave
themselves? ;-)

Mike.

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 7:07:47 PM UTC-5, Mike Coon wrote:

Was that the paradox of the barber who shaved everyone who didn't shave
themselves? ;-)

I believe that one was made popular by Bertrand Russell.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On 2018/01/01 4:07 PM, Mike Coon wrote:
In article ,
says...

William of Occam figured (at least) this out a few centuries ago. Full
Stop.

Was that the paradox of the barber who shaved everyone who didn't shave
themselves? ;-)

Mike.


She didn't need to shave.

John ;-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd.
MOVED to #7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3
(604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 11:11:09 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:

She didn't need to shave.

John ;-#)#

Which brings up a host of politically marginal issues.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 6:33:02 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Should we not be counting time from the initial event (aka: The Big
Bang)? Or, perhaps, as fundamentalist Christians would have it, some
6,000 years ago?

Of course we should. But, consider the Golden Rule - those what have the gold makes the rules (forgive the vernacular).

As English is the language of Air Traffic Control,
As Greenwich is O Meridian,

Initial Events may start as cultural, but as soon as a certain level of commerce and process uses them, momentum does the rest. The first railroads were in Great Britain and the US, and drove the concept of Time Zones and shared standards.

Commerce and banking drive years, dates, days, weeks and so forth.

Air Traffic Control as it is used today largely developed in WW-II to manage goings and comings on Aircraft Carriers. Although actual formal air-ground communications began in the 1930s in Cleveland of all places. Only the US had any Carriers of any consequence - the system developed, in English, largely in the 1950s with practical and highly efficient radar systems - also developed in/for the military. It is quite likely that "Earth Time" (UTC) will be used (eventualy) for space travel - and for the same reasons. Time Dilation will be an interesting twist on this, however.


6:00 p.m. Saturday, October 23, 4004 BC being the actual date-of-creation, we need to do a reset.

In article ,
says...

On 2018/01/01 4:07 PM, Mike Coon wrote:
In article ,
says...

William of Occam figured (at least) this out a few centuries ago. Full
Stop.

Was that the paradox of the barber who shaved everyone who didn't shave
themselves? ;-)

Mike.


She didn't need to shave.

John ;-#)#

Not sure anything was actually said about shaving beards...

Mike.

Was that the paradox of the barber who shaved everyone who didn't shave
themselves.

a) Not a true paradox (more on this later).
b) Yes, it is about shaving beards (root of Barber is Barba - Latin for Beard).

Let's look at Achilles and the Tortoise:

a) Tortoise gets a head start. TRUE
b) Achilles must cover an infinite series of half-the-distance before catching the tortoise. TRUE
c) And if Achilles does reach the position of the Tortoise, it has since moved. TRUE
d) Therefore Achilles will never catch the Tortoise. ????

If the barber (who might well be female) has no beard, she has no need to shave (her beard).
The act of shaving is not necessarily confined to beards.
Barbering is necessarily confined to beards.
As a BARBER, she may shave others' beards and not be in conflict with the paradox as she is still _shaving_ herself, just not a beard.
Logic chopping at its finest, but not a paradox. Conventional: A defined subset containing 0 items cannot be a paradox.

As to Xeno, we have the Crimmins Mack Truck Theory:

Give Mr. Xeno a 100' start on a Mack Truck.
Observe the results.

Reality:

Achilles has no intention of catching the Tortoise, but to go somewhere far ahead of it. He may never reach the far-ahead, but he will pass the Tortoise on his way there.

Similar level of logic-chopping, but none of the premises are falsified in the process. They remain true, but not relevant.

In any case, getting back to the OP, we should all defer to Marvin and wait for his discerning input.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA