The julian calendar provides one divisibility correction to the 365 day year, at divisibility by 4 in years away from the nonexistent year zero. The gregorian calendar provides three divisibility corrections, at divisibility by 4, 100, and 400. My 2009 Time/Britannica almanac offers a suggestion that a correction be made at divisibility by 4000. I find this to be an unwise suggestion, as it is not a step past the modern calculation for days/year of 365.242199 from the previous divisibility correction, Thus there is no subsequent correction that will improve fit. Each correction of the gregorian calendar, throws the cumulative correction to the other side of the modern value from the previous correction, getting closer to the modern value each time. by failing to cross over like that, the 4000 year correction creates a situation where the next, necessarily alternating type of correction (alternating between leap or deny leap), would worsen the cumulative fit--an absurd suggestion.
I have calculated 9 divisibility corrections past the 3 of the gregorian calendar which each improve fit, achieving a days/year value of 365.24219900000. In the event science refines its calculation of days/year I can recalculate my divisibilty corrections and replace the zeroes with whatever the refined figures are. I am not going to divulge my corrections unless homo sapiens civilization pays me $7 billion.
You laugh? You homo sapiens have a 4000 year correction on tap that effectively ends the usefulness of the calendar after 20,000 years. My corrections will reach five zeroes past the modern value and this means I can adapt the calendar beyond the expected lifetime of the sun, or 5 billion years.
If you don't like my price, make me a counter offer. I'm a businessman. Your efforts without me are leading to a dead end, so who is going to get five zeroes past the modern value, recalculable to suit, for cheaper and with less bureaucracy? Our attorneys would draw up an escrow agreement naming someone authoritative, such as the national institute of standards and technology, to validate that the corrections produce the claimed fit to the measured value of days/year.
I will advise you that my corrections include a common year in 2000 instead of the gregorian leap there. I would assert that this is a small price to pay for getting coverage for the expected lifetime of the sun.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
I have calculated calendar corrections through the lifetime of the sun. they are for sale.
calendar|common years|correction to leap years|days per year|gregorian calendar|julian calendar|leap years|lifetime of the sun|national institute of standards and technology|time|