# A public apology.

 Posts 29
Casual Member
hotdog8
Casual Member
Joined: Feb 21 2018, 01:52 PM

In closing everyone, and in my own defense, I just want you Kodegadulo to understand the rationale behind my delusion as to my line of argument with respect to my clock - you see I was looking at the problem from a Micro level without bothering to look at the Macro. I figured that because seconds are the most fundamental blocks of measuring time on a 'standard' analog clock, if I were to add just 1 second to each interval 12 - 1, 1 - 2, 2 - 3, 3 - 4, etc so that there were now 6 seconds instead of 5 seconds between each interval - and hence there would be 12d extra seconds in total for each minute ie. now 72d seconds in each minute and not 60d - hence making a standard clock what I would now call pseudo-dozenal, then all I would have to do is speed up the length of each 'normal' second by a factor of 5/6 (or 60/72) in order to keep my 'dozenal' measurement of time equal to the already accurate sexagesimal measurement of time. It even seemed correct when the figures were expressed dozenally. There would be now 60z seconds in a minute instead of the old 50z, so to keep the measurement of time constant with respect to a 'normal' clock I thought all I need do is divide the old number of seconds by the new and again get 50/60 which is again 5/6. I thought that I only needed to do the division one time only because I assumed that because the second hand on my analog clock has now sped up then so too would the minute hand speed up in the same proportion and thus measure hours and thus too days with the same accuracy as a normal clock ie. 60 dozenal seconds in each minute would measure the exact same length of time as 60 normal seconds in a minute, and thus so too would be the case with 60 dozenal minutes in the hour, and hence too also the day.

This is the point of where Kodegadulo and I disagreed - he insisted that I need to divide by 72 seconds twice and that his calculations showed that my 'sixond' (as Icarus had named them) was in fact (5/6) SQUARED ie. 0.6944d and not 5/6 or 0.8333d. It was only after I looked at the Macro side of the problem - the number of seconds in a DAY and not just in a minute - that I realised the error of my ways! You see, the normal number of seconds in a day is 60*60*24 = 86,400d and for me to keep the measurement of time constant due to the extra intervals I am adding on the old analog clock then I need to divide this figure by 'my' number of seconds which is 72*72*24 = 124,416d to obtain the correctional fraction. This gives a figure of 86400/124416 = 0.6944d just as Kodegadulo had calculated and told me. It is even easier to see why he was correct when the figures are expressed dozenally. The normal number of seconds in a day is 50*50*20 = 42,000z. My clock would have 60*60*20 = 60,000z seconds in a day. Thus the speed of my sixond would need to be 42/60 or 21/30 or again (5/6) SQUARED (dozenally) of the length of a normal second, just as you had told me Kodegadulo! I just hope that you can see my logic behind why I got it so wrong! I am sorry mate.

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
hotdog8 wrote: He then gave me some examples of scientific breakthroughs where the lesson to be learnt is that you should not prove and think yourself to be right, but rather to try and prove yourself wrong - a theory or even a law is not 'proven correct' but rather is 'correct until proven wrong'.
Actually what I said was that even the most successful scientific theories are never "proven". The best state they can achieve is "not yet proven wrong (despite our fiercest efforts to do so)". Science is not about looking only for evidence to confirm our biased opinions, but equally if not more so to find evidence that could overturn our pet theories.  Scientists learn a lot more when they prove themselves wrong.  When you look at a set of data and say "WTF??" is when you may be on the brink of a revolutionary discovery.
hotdog8 wrote:I said your clock sucked before I had actually seen it working in motion - I still haven't seen it working as such (I have tried on 3 separate occasions to download it from Softpaedia but all I get is page after page of different clock downloads and I couldn't find yours)
What you really want to do is go to where I put it myself, at my Sourceforge page. Hit the big green Download button.  Since it's packaged as a Java executable archive, you'll also need to go to Oracle's Java download site and download the latest Java Standard Edition.
hotdog8 wrote:but I recently visited the web site of the DSGB and they have a working dozenal clock on their Home page.
That looks to be one form of Paul's clock. In that instantiation, it's displaying semi-diurnal, or TGM time, which gives the day a binary division (0=AM, 1=PM) before dividing by dozenal powers all the way down.  One of the clock dials that UncialClockDeluxe can display is also a semi-diurnal clock, which is essentially the same as what you see there.

But a better place to see Paul's clock(s) is at https://dozenal.ae-web.ca/. That instantiation is a diurnal clock compatible with Primel, and essentially equivalent to the Diurnal clock dial that UncialClockDeluxe can display. Paul's clocks are implemented in javascript so they can live on a web page, and you don't need to download or install anything else. This also gives them the advantage that you can use your browser's zoom to expand or contract their size to whatever you like.  And the color scheme and style is, in my opinion, quite attractive.
hotdog8 wrote:If yours is anything like theirs Kodegadulo then it is a wonderful creation - I could understand and tell the time almost immediately upon first seeing it!  You see Kodegadulo I said your clocked sucked because I was always trying to convert the Dwells, Breathers, Lulls, Trices etc. back to hours, minutes and seconds (on a sexagesimal clock) whenever you spoke of them in your Posts, but all I would get is total confusion. However, when I saw the workings of the above-mentioned dozenal clock, I realised that the clock does all the calculations for you, and it is quite easy to tell the time, especially with the digital display showing!
If you're looking at the semi-diurnal (TGM) clock, the two slowest hands behave exactly like a conventional clock does: One rotates twice a day, the other rotates once an hour, i.e. twelve times faster.  But you'll see a third hand rotate twelve times faster still: once every 5 minutes (a "block").  A fourth hand rotates another dozen times faster: once every 25d seconds (a "lapse").
hotdog8 wrote:In closing everyone, and in my own defense, I just want you Kodegadulo to understand the rationale behind my delusion as to my line of argument with respect to my clock - you see I was looking at the problem from a Micro level without bothering to look at the Macro. I figured that because seconds are the most fundamental blocks of measuring time on a 'standard' analog clock, if I were to add just 1 second to each interval 12 - 1, 1 - 2, 2 - 3, 3 - 4, etc so that there were now 6 seconds instead of 5 seconds between each interval ... hence making a standard clock what I would now call pseudo-dozenal,....
I just hope that you can see my logic behind why I got it so wrong! I am sorry mate
Yes, I understood what you were trying to do there.  But I think you may still be missing something important here. Even after you correct your math to account for having two levels of divisions, what you have in the end still isn't truly "dozenal", and certainly doesn't match what either my clock or Paul's is doing. Substituting a 5 for a 6 is not really enough to give us a purely "dozenal" clock.  All that does is substitute sexagesimal (base sixty = five dozen) with base six-dozen (= seventy-two).  But "base six-dozen" is not the same as "base twelve".  If you're going to do something in "base twelve", you've gotta stick with twelves all the way up and twelves all the way down the scale. Period.

Take a real close look at any of Paul's clocks. (You can see it on my UncialClockDeluxe too, but you have to turn the feature on, and it's kind of faint anyway. So Paul's clock is better to look at for this.) How many tick-marked intervals do you see between each of the big numerals? Well it's not 5.  And it's not 6.  It's twelve. That's the point.

You don't have three hands, with one going around once (or twice) a day, another one going twelve times faster than that, and a third hand going sixty times faster still, or even seventy-two times faster still.  No. What you have are as many as four hands, the first one going around once (or twice) a day, another going twelve times faster, the next going twelve times faster still, and the quickest going twelve times faster than that.  Twelves all the way down, not skipping any powers in between.

Grasshopper, you must let go of Babylon (base sixty) and also Surrogate Babylon (base six-dozen) to fully understand the Dozenal Way ... the Tao of Do.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)