I have calculated corrections to the calendar incorporating slowing of the earth's rotation.

Using the figures for current days/year of 365.242199 and annual rotational slowing of 0.008812 seconds/year/year, I have calculated what I believe to be perhaps the best divisibility corrections to the calendar. I divided time after the current year 1 into seven intervals, numbered 0-6. each begins with the year 1. At each expiration, the values of (observable days/year minus cumulative calendar days/year) are given as follows:

0: -0.0000245
1: 0.0000799
2: 0.0000669
3: -0.0000970
4: -0.0000119
5: 0.0000409
6: -0.0000180

The sum of squares is 2.3007 e -8

I am still asking for someone to buy my figures at the asking price of $7,000,000,000 (make me a counter offer.) Included in that price is calculation by my heirs of all corrections up to the time at which the earth will make one rotation every year, The same side facing the sun constantly, like the moon does around the earth. presumably that will be a stable condition and not change for the remainder of the life of the sun. If slowing does not change, the earth will face one side to the sun always after some 3.5 billion years. The expected lifetime of the sun is 5 billion years.

considering my readers as clients

I am concerned that I have created too much of a memory-driven product here. I need to consider my readers as clients. what real value have I to offer here? The more powerful an idea, the greater the fallout. There should be ramifications that reach into tiny details. Otherwise, its just daydreaming.

But why is there no response to the matter of planning ahead for the calendar? Is it that people don't follow the math? Or is it that they trust "the authorities" to make the right decisions without a public debate? It was "the authorities" at Time Magazine and Encyclopedia Britannica who advanced a common year in 4000, a measure that wouldn't work if the earth's rotation were not slowing, and won't work considering that the earth really is slowing. Who else is willing to think about this? I found this link to a discussion, but it leaves me still wanting someone to talk about the pattern of alternating leap and common years at certain divisibilities as the way to gradually close in on a better fit, With slowing rotation the fly in the ointment that ends the system at four divisibilities. the language they use officially about the 100 and 400 year divisibilities is not instructive about this alternation effect, and leads to much confusion in the minds of the public.

divisions of time into administrative regimes

Given a different set of divisibility corrections, a new administration regime will need to identify its range of years as a different administration. This argues in favor of rezeroing. changing divisibility corrections is not a minor adjustment and continuing year count across the divide is misleading. The more regimes, the more need to identify them all and continuous years is not good for this.

The fact that in early regimes the difference is encountered in late divisibility corrections is not a geneal situation since in later regimes the first divisibility correction will be different. The feeling of continuity is not good to endorse. this supports rezeroing.

A year zero cannot be calculated as leap or common. Its omission may have been purposeful. In any case its omission in this type of system is correct, which argues against any conclusion that the calendar orders the real number line.