Didn't the Julian calendar start out with ten months, but then a couple of emperors wanted months named after them? As for pi, it is un-American to be against pie. That's fine for the OP who is Canadian. But, though I really hate to agree with amm0bob, as an American, I like both pi and pie. I'd even like a square pie, providing it's apple. And yes, you can make a square pie out of round apples if you have an environmentally correct square Pyrex baking dish instead of un-environmental disposable aluminum pie tins.
Is that just with the old American made Pyrex or does that include the newer exploding made in China Pyrex?
Indeed it did. Not only did Julius and Augustus want months named after them, they wanted the best ones. And didn't care that the following months - named after 7, 8, 9, and 10 - would become displaced misnomers. Pyrex are round, too.
This is a myth.. Pyrex sold in the US is made in the US. No one has quite been able to determine with certainty when they switched to soda glass. snopes.com: Exploding Pyrex
I have been there when it happened. Explosion is an exaggerated term, but it does go with some noise, just like a tempered glass window. Whether or not it explodes more frequently now than then is questionable.
That depends on the definition of 'month'. As your link explains, the lunar period varies from a low of 27.2 days to a high of 29.5 days, according to the chosen point of reference. Using the standard working definition of 28 days for a lunar cycle, and an Earth year of 365 days (which is also open to interpretation, and refinement over time) yields 13 months with a remainder of one day. 13x28 = 364
I think the remainder is actually a bit under one and a quarter. My definition of a month is a calendar month on the Gregorian calendar. There are therefore different month lengths, and 12 of them per year, adjusted in February as needed to keep the summer solstice from getting too far away from its assigned date.
Yes, I understand the Gregorian calendar is the current de facto international standard. There's one on my fridge, too. But it's not just numbers on pages - it contains infinite teaching moments of human history and knowledge, and questions much deeper than 'What day is it?' Calendars also represent certain perspectives, which is where my earlier question about the number of months came from. It's not the Summer Solstice that changes, it's our record-keeping. Aside from keeping everyone on the same page, a calendar is a reflection of planetary motions and celestial events. As our understanding of celestial mechanics has deepened, and our measurements more precise, we have made adjustments in the calendar to keep it synchronised. It's Universe that's the big clock - we're just trying to keep time.
Do we though? Scientists can not agree on what time is or if it even exists. Is time all through perception, or is there an anti-time for this time which would mean a known beginning and end, nobody knows... What they do know is that perception of time increases with respect to age. A senior's time travels much faster than a toddlers. Something like 125% faster once you are in young adult hood, and 225% by the time you retire.
Of course not! It's pictures of cats also. At least, mine is. Actually, due to the precession of the equinoxes, the solstices do change with respect to the background stars. But because civilization until very recently was predominantly concerned with agriculture, people decided they wanted a calendar that always had the summer solstice fall on the same date. That time exists, as one dimension of space-time, is not in dispute. Exactly what time is, is a philosophical question that science does not concern itself with.
The perception changes because our perspective changes. When we're 10 years old, a year is 10% of our life. When we're 50 years old, a year is only 2% of our life. Einstein was right - time is relative. The older we get, the faster it goes. Fortunately, some moments last forever. Or unfortunately, depending what you remember.
No that is in dispute. Quantum science has been toying with the idea of multiple dimension time. If we accept multiple spacial dimensions, why not multiple time dimensions? This is rather "new" science though, but the point is that the existence of and idea of time is being disputed today.
I believe that's more fringe speculation than science. Sure, on the edge of science people come up with some wacky ideas. But until there's a wee bit of evidence, it remains speculation. I've heard those notions about multiple time dimensions, but so far there is nothing behind them. As for multiple space dimensions beyond the usual three, those ideas come out of "brane" theories that so far have yielded nothing useful and are liable to be dead ends.