Other Jimness > Codex Alera Spoilers
Codex Alera Timeline
Priscellie:
--- Quote from: Exitao on November 23, 2009, 07:13:47 AM ---What I'm arguing is that you have no rationally justifiable basis upon which to assume that they are the same, and that as such, your "theories" are specious at best and, at worst, a complete waste of my time to read.
The onus is on you to give us a reason why we should accept anything you conjecture. The fact is that probability tells us that it is unlikely that any two planets will hold exactly the same orbit. I don't need any proof that they are different when common sense tells me that they are unlikely to be sufficiently similar for you to base your timeline on.
Come up with your proof, or any rational justification to ignore probability, because until you do, you have nothing.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to read more interesting things; your passionate attempts to argue things that can't be argued have begun to bore me.
--- End quote ---
Exitao, you need to show more respect for your fellow posters.
Sully:
The roman year on Earth wasn't a full orbit, and didn't necessarily correspond to the seasons in any way, shape or form.
Why should the Aleran year magically be an orbit either?
Shecky:
Because, sooner or later, any continuing civilization eventually does tie the year into something astronomical. Plus, given that Jim is acutely aware of his audience, it would be unlike him to make such a basic thing incomprehensible to the vast majority of his readers.
Quantus:
--- Quote from: Sully on November 23, 2009, 03:04:59 PM ---The roman year on Earth wasn't a full orbit, and didn't necessarily correspond to the seasons in any way, shape or form.
Why should the Aleran year magically be an orbit either?
--- End quote ---
Umm, i disagree on both counts. Because in every calender in every culture ever, the cycle of a year was one full turning of the seasons. everything else is just various ways to chop it up, and most of the confusion and inaccuracies come from trying to combine the year and the seasons (solar events) which are needed for any extended historical reckoning, with the lunar months that are more useful in daily life.
And as for the assertion that the roman calender wasnt astronimical:
The pre-julian roman calender was a lunar calender, based on the greek lunar calenders. Originally it only covered 10 months and 304 days, leaving the depth of winter unassigned (when nothing important happened because everyone was hiding from the cold and usually could see the sky anyway :P). Then Numa Pompilius (an early Roman King) added jan and feb to cover the full winter. It then went through a number a revisions attempting to make it more accurate (accurate in relation to astronimical events). Then in 46 BC Julius Caesar reformed it to the Julian calender after consultation with the astronomer Sosigenes of Alexandria, trying to make the the year match the Solar orbit, including the addition of leap years. Since the orbit is 365 days and 6 hours, the caleder would drift by one day every four years without it. That calender lasted until the 16th century, when a Pope refined leap year and started counting years based on the birth of christ instead of the founding of Roma
Exitao:
--- Quote from: Shecky on November 23, 2009, 11:27:57 AM ---Sorry, but the onus of proof is upon you; Occam's Razor supports the Earth-and-Carna similarity idea, as explained by my previous post about the narrow range of factors required for human habitation. Science tells you that they are VERY likely to be sufficiently similar for all of us to base a timeline on. Now please drop the attitude and join a reasonable discussion.
--- End quote ---
Let's use Occam's razor this way:
What is more likely,
a) two planets having the exact same diameter and orbit (and consider the odds of such a thing),
or
b) two planets having "very similar," but not exact diameters and orbits?
The narrow range of factors required for habitability still allows for a great deal of variability when it comes to the orbital path of a planet. "Very similar" can still allow for longer/shorter days and/or months. These add up. Whether it's a meter or a kilometre, or even 100-100 000 kilometres, these differences can all be within the allowed range of variability for habitability, these things change the subjective measurements of days and years.
I'm sorry if you refuse to embrace these concepts, but it's very simple logic. I'm not a master of reasoning, but I actually have studied formal logic and epistemology. When I say that there's no "rational justification," it's not me accusing someone of being looney. It's me pointing out that there is no logical foundation upon which to build the idea and actually believe it.
It's fine to have a working hypothesis without evidence to support it, but you have to have some evidence to dispute valid criticisms. I've pointed out that there is nothing in the books to justify the belief that years will measure the same, that the laws of probability inform us that this is exceedingly unlikely.
I've explained it well enough, the logic behind my criticism is sound. If you have no actual evidence to refute it with, then you have to accept that the hypothesis is flawed or come up with proof.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version