Codex Alera Timeline

[Shecky]

And we know nothing about Carna, but I will point out that probability tells us that it is extremely unlikely that Carna will have exactly the same orbit around its sun as our planet does ours.

This is incorrect. Any planet capable of sustaining human life indefinitely is VERY likely to have a situation almost identical to ours (same kind of sun, same distance from the sun, similar orbital paths, same elements, same climates, etc.). We do not have a broad survival range when it comes to potential planetary situations. It's certainly possible for other combinations to work out, but they're even more persnickety than our current sheaf of factors.

[pdqsport]

Look, a larger world with the same rotational speed will have more "time" in a day.  Even if they can divide it all evenly into 24 hours of 60 mins of 50 seconds each, those seconds would be longer.  Then again, they could be shorter.

Some can go for the orbit of the planet around its sun.  Years can be longer or shorter.

The variables you suggest are more variable than you want to comprehend.  The measurement of time is subjective.

18 years of Terran time is measured by 18 rotations around Sol. Which is not the same as 18 years of Martian time, which holds a different orbit:
A one year old Martian would be different from a one year old Terran...  And we know nothing about Carna, but I will point out that probability tells us that it is extremely unlikely that Carna will have exactly the same orbit around its sun as our planet does ours.

No the variables as I have given them are simple.  I have stated birth is at "X" (I NEVER said that "X" had anything to do with the orbits or rotational speed).  The verbage used to describe "X" can (and probably does) vary from culture to culture and planet to planet.  None of which changes the fact that "X" is a fixed point in time.  With today described as "Y", the AGE is the difference between "X" and "Y".  If you want to measure that difference in days, hours, centons, rells, or any other word we may have come across as being used doesn't change what the difference is.

If you want to argue that 5 Aleran years are longer/shorter than 5 Terran years, please find me some book evidence to support this.  Otherwise I would say it's "Occam Time".  The simplest answer is that the length of a "Year" there is roughly the same as it is here unless there is quality evidence to the contrary, and I do not think we have been given any to this point.

The description of time is subjective.  The measurement is objective.  A Martian "year" may not be the same as a Terran year, but that simply means that the 2 different locations are using a measuring stick with different markings and applying it to the SAME block of time.

[Exitao]

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. 

[jasowat]

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. 

You want a "rational justification to ignore probability"?  How about that this is a work of fantasy.  It is pretty much common practice in fantasy fiction to assume time runs pretty much the same as our own.  JB has no reason to make the measurement of time on Carna any different from our own, espescially without telling us.  That would be pretty pointless.  When he tells us that a character is a specific age, he expects us to know what that means.  I doubt he's sitting at home cackling evilly over all of our misplaced assumptions about his characters' ages.  To assume time a year in on Carna is different than a year on earth is just ridiculous in the context of the story.

That is my own "rational justification to ignore probability."  No, it has nothing to do with science.  Nothing to do with the speed at which the planet rotates, or goes around its sun.  Sorry, it's as simple as that.

[Shecky]

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. 

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.

[Priscellie]

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. 

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]

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?

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 ).  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]

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.

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.

[Shecky]

That's nice. I've studied formal logic, epistemology and physics. And the physics of the "biozone" (i.e., the conditions that support human life, including the class of star, the composition of the planet, the disposition of its stellar system, the physical placement, the rotational period and many, many other things) has such a narrow window of viability that it is highly unlikely that the period of said planet's revolution will vary more than a few percent. Even at a variance of 5%, that comes to one year in twenty. One.

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.

The burden of refutation is, again, on you. Physicists have been disagreeing with you for quite a long time, and they have proof. You can research it on your own at your leisure, but until you've studied orbital mechanics, geology and a number of other pertinent fields (took me a number of years), or until you decide to be willing to listen to people who've heard people who know what they're talking about in that field, your "hypothesis" has no logical value.

[Priscellie]

At this point, it's clear neither of you is going to convince the other.  I declare this length of an Aleran year discussion over.

[Shecky]

At this point, it's clear neither of you is going to convince the other.  I declare this length of an Aleran year discussion over.

Psht. Thread's dead for four days, even more than a Certain Someone was able to rise from, yet YOU necro it... to say it's dead? *blinks* Deity-level logic is mind-blowingly inhuman.

[Priscellie]

I am not beholden to your trifling mortal logic.  What your feeble brains fail to grasp of my divine plan is your failing, not my own.  Be grateful to have glimpsed the goddess in her divine arbitration, and question not her motives!

[Shecky]

I am not beholden to your trifling mortal logic.  What your feeble brains fail to grasp of my divine plan is your failing, not my own.  Be grateful to have glimpsed the goddess in her divine arbitration, and question not her motives!

Fine. As long as there are crepes in it for me at some point, you got it.