sqishy
July 1st, 2016, 05:19 PM
[ TheFlapjack (because you may be interested) ]
Here is another thread, with another thing to talk about. I will try to keep it on point again.
- - - - - - - -
Practically all calendars around are based off certain changing aspects of the Sun and Moon from our geocentric perspective.
Before I mention some of these properties, let us get the setting that all astronomy (and astrology) from Earth tends to take.
For (almost - those pesky ISS inhabitants) all of us, our experienced world from observation is of two main features: the sky and the earth. Generally, all that is of the earth is theoretically reachable by us moving, with/without technology. All of the earth is practically of finite distance. Conversely, all that is of the sky is unreachable by us moving - we always are bound to the earth, except for those extreme technological exceptions with the ISS and such. Practically, all of the sky is of infinite distance.
- - - - - - - -
We have different mapping systems for both the sun and earth (depending on what we want to get out of them). Because this thread is about calendars, I'm just talking about maps of the sky.
The best maps of the sky are those which use spherical geometry, one kind of 2-dimensional geometry that has the dimensions constantly curved in ways which have the two coordinates appear as angles to us, and where straight lines actually tend to diverge/converge on each other. Leaving the rest of the mathematical ideas and practices aside, we basically have the sky appearing as the surface of a sphere.
Even though it is argued well that the spherical background sky structure is an illusion, it's an illusion that tends to permanently stay with us, so it is effectively our reality of the sky as humans on a planet. I like a self-centred psychological starting point for these things at least, if you have not noticed already.
- - - - - - - -
The two objects that are the most noticeable to us are the Sun and Moon, mostly for their sheer brightness and size relative to the sum of every other object in the sky. These are also known as the luminaries.
There are many different ways one can view the sky/the luminaries/stars/etc, with what counts as a sky object, what sets of properties each object can have, and so on. I won't try to give complete overall examples, but I give two contender 'particular' examples: the position of the object in the sky-space (the spherical space it appears to be in), and the brightness/colour distribution the object itself has.
The object's position can be thought of (in a simplification) as an exherent property - it's the relation of the object with that not of the object (the totality of the sky in this case).
Similarly, the object's brightness/colour distribution is inherent to it - it's the relation of different parts of the object, with each other.
Most calendars have the luminaries as the main concern, because of their great effect on the earth. However, most calendars are also only concerned with the position aspect of the Sun, and the brightness/colour distribution aspect of the Moon.
The Sun's position is defined through its 'pole-to-pole' latitude coordinate (its elevation above/below the celestial equator), and its longitude coordinate (the 'horizontal' analog to the latitude, if latitude is taken as 'vertical').
- - - - - - - -
The start and end of a year for [solar] calendars is defined through one cycle of the Sun's longitudinal position change. The Sun moves at a (roughly!) constant west-east direction across the celestial sky-space (happenstance about one of its diameters per solar day). A certain longitudinal position (a certain number on the coordinate system) is taken as a reference, and the period of time between the Sun crossing that reference position is one solar year.
The seasons are generally defined through the cyclical nature of the Sun's changing latitudinal position. The Sun does move closer to one celestial pole and further from the other, but there are times when it reaches its closest distance to one and starts to move the opposite direction to the other. For its stoppage closest to the north pole, it is the June (in our Gregorian calendar) solstice, and for the stoppage closest to the south pole it is the December solstice. The March/September equinoxes are points where the Sun crosses the celestial equator.
From the basic latitude/longitude changes of the Sun, we have the solar years and general season predictions.
- - - - - - - -
For the Moon, it's about its phase changes, which I've called colour-brightness distribution changes because that is basically what is going on - the phases are a certain pattern of brightness and colour manifestations of the Moon.
Most calendars define one month as being the period of time between either a New or Full Moon - the New phase being the time when the Moon is the most dim across its face, and the Full being when it is the most bright across its face. There is not much else to that for this.
Look at most calendars and you will see labels and patterns set on the same phases of the Moon, and the positions of the Sun.
- - - - - - - -
...and yet, there is no mention or apparent interest in the position of the Moon, or brightness changes of the Sun. Why is this?
Because we primarily care only for features in the sky that
1: Change in a cyclical manner
2: Are relatively easy to observe their changes and instants
3: Happen in timescales which are accessible enough to our memories (not seconds long or decades long).
Ideally, aspects of objects in the sky should have all three of these.
- - - - - - - -
The Moon has latitudinal and longitudinal positions, and they also change, but they are more complex in their changes than the Sun's and could just be a little too complicated to accurately label in simple ways for calendars.
Though point 3 above is great here, point 2 doesn't work very well here, and point 1 even less so.
The Sun changes in brightness distributions too, but they are way more subtle than those of the Moon, and this also leaves out the fact that our eyes get burned by the sheer excessive brightness of the sun already. Point 1 and 2 don't happen here at all, and point 3 only happens sometimes.
There are also aspects of the Sun and Moon, such as the changes in their apparent sizes themselves. The Sun is actually biggest in early January and smallest in early July, and the Moon's size also changes significantly. You can compare the max/min sizes of the Sun/Moon with each other and clearly see a difference, but these differences are very difficult for us to remember over time - for the nature of our memories, point 2 doesn't happen here.
- - - - - - - -
Just looking at the three key points to having a place in a calendar system, is enough to show how our minds work in certain ways. Our organisation of the sky can be very relevant in showing how we work as humans here on earth.
____________
As a side note, the coordinates I mentioned are of a system that presumes an regular constant spinning of background stars in the sky, which is the geocentric manifestation of the Earth spinning. If the Earth did not spin, the celestial poles and celestial equator would be meaningless, but other coordinate systems could be used/made.
Also, I regard the seasons as being regular overall changes in the state of the earth, such due to the state of the sky as a whole, not just the Sun. This abstracts from the stereotypical view that the seasons are motivated only by the latitudinal position changes of the Sun - rather, it's that but also its longitudinal changes, its size, all of that with the Moon too, the planets, etc. Though the Sun's latitude is a major factor, it is not the only factor, and everything else is not negligible either. This also opens to the debate on what a season essentially means, and if whole season cycles can occur within other season cycles (e.g. many solar days within a solar year).
Finally, I don't like the Gregorian calendar much for its arbitrary start/end-of-year times compared to the Sun's aspects, the lack of week-month alignment, the presence of haphazard month length differences, and lack of the months having any keeping with any aspect of the Moon manifest to us. Unfortunately that's not enough to undo the deep subconscious impression it's had on my mind when it comes to all timekeeping things beyond a day (yet!).
Here is another thread, with another thing to talk about. I will try to keep it on point again.
- - - - - - - -
Practically all calendars around are based off certain changing aspects of the Sun and Moon from our geocentric perspective.
Before I mention some of these properties, let us get the setting that all astronomy (and astrology) from Earth tends to take.
For (almost - those pesky ISS inhabitants) all of us, our experienced world from observation is of two main features: the sky and the earth. Generally, all that is of the earth is theoretically reachable by us moving, with/without technology. All of the earth is practically of finite distance. Conversely, all that is of the sky is unreachable by us moving - we always are bound to the earth, except for those extreme technological exceptions with the ISS and such. Practically, all of the sky is of infinite distance.
- - - - - - - -
We have different mapping systems for both the sun and earth (depending on what we want to get out of them). Because this thread is about calendars, I'm just talking about maps of the sky.
The best maps of the sky are those which use spherical geometry, one kind of 2-dimensional geometry that has the dimensions constantly curved in ways which have the two coordinates appear as angles to us, and where straight lines actually tend to diverge/converge on each other. Leaving the rest of the mathematical ideas and practices aside, we basically have the sky appearing as the surface of a sphere.
Even though it is argued well that the spherical background sky structure is an illusion, it's an illusion that tends to permanently stay with us, so it is effectively our reality of the sky as humans on a planet. I like a self-centred psychological starting point for these things at least, if you have not noticed already.
- - - - - - - -
The two objects that are the most noticeable to us are the Sun and Moon, mostly for their sheer brightness and size relative to the sum of every other object in the sky. These are also known as the luminaries.
There are many different ways one can view the sky/the luminaries/stars/etc, with what counts as a sky object, what sets of properties each object can have, and so on. I won't try to give complete overall examples, but I give two contender 'particular' examples: the position of the object in the sky-space (the spherical space it appears to be in), and the brightness/colour distribution the object itself has.
The object's position can be thought of (in a simplification) as an exherent property - it's the relation of the object with that not of the object (the totality of the sky in this case).
Similarly, the object's brightness/colour distribution is inherent to it - it's the relation of different parts of the object, with each other.
Most calendars have the luminaries as the main concern, because of their great effect on the earth. However, most calendars are also only concerned with the position aspect of the Sun, and the brightness/colour distribution aspect of the Moon.
The Sun's position is defined through its 'pole-to-pole' latitude coordinate (its elevation above/below the celestial equator), and its longitude coordinate (the 'horizontal' analog to the latitude, if latitude is taken as 'vertical').
- - - - - - - -
The start and end of a year for [solar] calendars is defined through one cycle of the Sun's longitudinal position change. The Sun moves at a (roughly!) constant west-east direction across the celestial sky-space (happenstance about one of its diameters per solar day). A certain longitudinal position (a certain number on the coordinate system) is taken as a reference, and the period of time between the Sun crossing that reference position is one solar year.
The seasons are generally defined through the cyclical nature of the Sun's changing latitudinal position. The Sun does move closer to one celestial pole and further from the other, but there are times when it reaches its closest distance to one and starts to move the opposite direction to the other. For its stoppage closest to the north pole, it is the June (in our Gregorian calendar) solstice, and for the stoppage closest to the south pole it is the December solstice. The March/September equinoxes are points where the Sun crosses the celestial equator.
From the basic latitude/longitude changes of the Sun, we have the solar years and general season predictions.
- - - - - - - -
For the Moon, it's about its phase changes, which I've called colour-brightness distribution changes because that is basically what is going on - the phases are a certain pattern of brightness and colour manifestations of the Moon.
Most calendars define one month as being the period of time between either a New or Full Moon - the New phase being the time when the Moon is the most dim across its face, and the Full being when it is the most bright across its face. There is not much else to that for this.
Look at most calendars and you will see labels and patterns set on the same phases of the Moon, and the positions of the Sun.
- - - - - - - -
...and yet, there is no mention or apparent interest in the position of the Moon, or brightness changes of the Sun. Why is this?
Because we primarily care only for features in the sky that
1: Change in a cyclical manner
2: Are relatively easy to observe their changes and instants
3: Happen in timescales which are accessible enough to our memories (not seconds long or decades long).
Ideally, aspects of objects in the sky should have all three of these.
- - - - - - - -
The Moon has latitudinal and longitudinal positions, and they also change, but they are more complex in their changes than the Sun's and could just be a little too complicated to accurately label in simple ways for calendars.
Though point 3 above is great here, point 2 doesn't work very well here, and point 1 even less so.
The Sun changes in brightness distributions too, but they are way more subtle than those of the Moon, and this also leaves out the fact that our eyes get burned by the sheer excessive brightness of the sun already. Point 1 and 2 don't happen here at all, and point 3 only happens sometimes.
There are also aspects of the Sun and Moon, such as the changes in their apparent sizes themselves. The Sun is actually biggest in early January and smallest in early July, and the Moon's size also changes significantly. You can compare the max/min sizes of the Sun/Moon with each other and clearly see a difference, but these differences are very difficult for us to remember over time - for the nature of our memories, point 2 doesn't happen here.
- - - - - - - -
Just looking at the three key points to having a place in a calendar system, is enough to show how our minds work in certain ways. Our organisation of the sky can be very relevant in showing how we work as humans here on earth.
____________
As a side note, the coordinates I mentioned are of a system that presumes an regular constant spinning of background stars in the sky, which is the geocentric manifestation of the Earth spinning. If the Earth did not spin, the celestial poles and celestial equator would be meaningless, but other coordinate systems could be used/made.
Also, I regard the seasons as being regular overall changes in the state of the earth, such due to the state of the sky as a whole, not just the Sun. This abstracts from the stereotypical view that the seasons are motivated only by the latitudinal position changes of the Sun - rather, it's that but also its longitudinal changes, its size, all of that with the Moon too, the planets, etc. Though the Sun's latitude is a major factor, it is not the only factor, and everything else is not negligible either. This also opens to the debate on what a season essentially means, and if whole season cycles can occur within other season cycles (e.g. many solar days within a solar year).
Finally, I don't like the Gregorian calendar much for its arbitrary start/end-of-year times compared to the Sun's aspects, the lack of week-month alignment, the presence of haphazard month length differences, and lack of the months having any keeping with any aspect of the Moon manifest to us. Unfortunately that's not enough to undo the deep subconscious impression it's had on my mind when it comes to all timekeeping things beyond a day (yet!).