User talk:Chimeraha

Terran computational calendar
Thanks again Jc3s5h for explaining/directing me to why things happen on wikipedia.

The idea and the algorithm of the terran computational calendar is the only thing I wish to convey, not as a replacement for "THE" ISO_8601 world standardized calendar or the traditional gregorian, but definitely as a more stable, synchronized, and more easily calculable alternative. I don't think I should have listed the terran computational calendar as a candidate for gregorian calendar reform, since it really has nothing to do with the gregorian calendar at all, but someone left a message on the terran computational calendar page stating that it was an orphan and that it should be linked to another page, so I thought calendar reform would be the proper place for such a link. But now I know how to talk to people and ask for help on how to do this in the future.

As for the gregorian calendar being impossible to replace, I would agree with you because it has been in such wide use for such a long time. But I think anyone who deals with calendar algorithms day in and day out is fed up with the gregorian calendar, and so, I do believe that other calendars that are easier to calculate will become used more frequently in the future for specific purposes. In fact, our current society has already shifted to Unix time for programming the vast majority of computers, smart phones, and all other digital devices. The terran computational calendar basically synchronizes with this 1969/1970 CE UNIX Epoch and devises other means to simply calculation for mathematicians and computer scientists.

The "new millennium matter": The end of the first 2000 years of Gregorian calendar occurred at the very beginning of 2001 since the initial position of the calender is the beginning of 1 AD. However, the start date of the ISO_8601 standard is 1 BC (of the gregorian calendar) and 0 of the ISO_8601 standard and therefore the end of the first 2000 years of the ISO_8601 standard is at the beginning of 2000. So I guess it depends on which variant you are using. This confusion is one of the reasons why an alternative calendar system using Zero-based numbering like the years of the ISO_8601 is so important: to avoid annoying discrepancies like that. Subtracting years, months, days, etc. is much easier when everything begins with 0. It can be confusing, but so was the concept of zero when it started to gain popularity some 500 years ago in europe.

As for leap years, the gregorian's "fix" for this is still slightly off and losses about a day per 8000 years (or every 3,300 years by one account). Not only that, but it's algorithm is a bit complicated, omiting a leap year every 100 but not 400 years. Omitting a leap year every 128 years or every 32nd time (see and search for 128) is a far easier algorithm and by my calculations, efficient to a loss of a day every 454,545 years using the mean tropical day approximation of 365.2421897 days (though actual efficiency is much harder to calculate due to things like Milankovitch cycles).

Thanks again for helping out, Chimeraha (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * For all of human history, and probably even prehistory, calendars have been made up of counted apparent solar days (although the exact time of transition from one day to the next has sometimes based on some form of mean time). In 2015 the International Telecommunications Union will take up the question of whether the leap seconds which correct atomic time to solar time will be eliminated. The gradual slowing of the rotation of the earth, which is not entirely predictable, makes it impossible to decide whether the Gregorian calendar or one of the proposed reforms that has a similar average year length would be more accurate. The elimination of leap seconds would affect the answer to which calendar is most accurate. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * During the past 42 years 25 leap seconds have been added giving us 0.595238095 leap seconds a year on average for those years. If this trend continues (assuming we don't start adding a huge amount of leap seconds each year), then given that there are 86,400 (24*60*60) seconds in a day, it will take about 145,152 years to gain a single day without leap seconds.  Like mentioned above, the gregorian calendar's treatment of leap years is accurate to a loss of a day every 3,300-8,000 years, so doing without leap seconds might not matter with this extremely inaccurate calendar (which is why I'm a strong proponant of omitting leap years every 128 years instead).  Regardless, however, if in 6,000 years we still want midnight to represent midnight and not 1:00:00 am, we will want to include leap seconds or find some other definition for a second.
 * Normal calendars measure greater lengths like days and years, so it seems strange that people are trying to define such grand scale calendars with atoms. I think calendars should be defined with seconds being exactly 1/86400 of a day (no matter what the year or human era), and years being the period between the same solstice/equinox. And for precise scientific metric measurements of time, sure, use 9,192,631,770 periods of a cesium atom at 0 K, or whatever you want, but call it something else, don't call it a second.  Call it a "tempo" or "beat" or something along those lines.  Or use some other measurement like how long it takes light to travel a meter.
 * Converting between the two is where the problem lies. However, I really don't think that matters a whole bunch when attempting to predict time to the exact day after 145,152 years, especially since we can't even predict to the decade the period of any Milankovitch cycle. Chimeraha (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Eugene Veg Education Network


Hello, Chimeraha. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eugene Veg Education Network".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Eugene Veg Education Network concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Eugene Veg Education Network, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Eugene Veg Education Network


Hello, Chimeraha. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eugene Veg Education Network".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)