It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whoa! The Julian Calendar is always ahead of the Gregorian Calendar?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: neutrinostargate
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

"Russian President Vladimir Putin attends an Orthodox Christmas service at a local cathedral of the village Otradnoye in Voronezh region Jan. 7, 2015. Most Orthodox Christians celebrate Christmas according to the Julian calendar on Jan. 7, two weeks after most western Christian churches that abide by the Gregorian calendar. Photo: Reuters/Alexei Druzhinin/RIA Novosti/Kremlin "

So is that wrong above? LOL You are saying Jan. 7th should be the Gregorian date. Well guess what? They don't follow the freaking Gregorian calendar, they follow the Julian. Jan. 7th is the Julian date not the Gregorian. If they followed the Gregorian, which they don't, then sure, they would follow Jan. 7th as the Gregorian date.


The wording used in that paragraph is ambiguous. Let me re-write it in a way that is more clear:

"Russian President Vladimir Putin attends an Orthodox Christmas service at a local cathedral of the village Otradnoye in Voronezh region Jan. 7, 2015. Most Orthodox Christians celebrate Christmas according to the Julian calendar, which falls on Jan. 7 on the Gregorian Calendar, two weeks after most western Christian churches that abide by the Gregorian calendar...."

You are again running into semantics.




Not semantics. It is fact. The Julian is always ahead of the Gregorian. That is a fact! Every 133.33 years the Julian calendar becomes 1 day longer from the Gregorian, and not behind the Gregorian. That is fact!

Again, if the Russian Orthodox followed the Julian calendar, then there is no point to celebrate Christmas on Jan. 7th Gregorian because essentially they are superseding the Gregorian calendar over the Julian. They must supersede the Julian over the Gregorian if they follow it, so Jan. 7th Julian would be Dec. 25th Gregorian.




"Fixed Feasts Holidays celebrated on specific days each year are known as "fixed feasts" and include Christmas, New Year's and All Saints Day. In Roman Catholicism, Christmas is on December 25th every year, New Year's Day is always on January 1st, and All Saints Day is always on November 1st. In Orthodox churches, fixed feasts in the Julian calendar occur 13 days later than the Gregorian calendar's fixed feasts. For example, Christmas is celebrated on January 7th."


people.opposingviews.com...




posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutrinostargate

Not semantics. It is fact. The Julian is always ahead of the Gregorian. That is a fact! Every 133.33 years the Julian calendar becomes 1 day longer from the Gregorian, and not behind the Gregorian. That is fact!

What makes you say that a calendar that is longer is "ahead of" a calendar that is shorter? The longer calendar takes longer to count one year, so it would eventually fall behind, not "ahead".

Let's say that it was January 1, 1900 (Gregorian), and you and I are each given different calendars to mark the year that is to follow -- you the Julian and me the Gregorian.

Both of us begin marking the days on our respective calendars beginning on that Gregorian January 1. However, being the year 1900, the Julian Calendar would be counting an extra day on February 29 that the Gregorian is NOT counting (there would be no February 29 on the Gregorian). Therefore, your Julian year would be longer than the Gregorian (366 days on the Julian vs. 365 days on the Gregorian), so the end of the year would come sooner on the shorter Gregorian Calendar. On the 365th day of marking those days on our calendars, it would already be December 31 on my Gregorian Calendar, but would only be December 30 on your Julian.

In that case, the Julian would be one day behind the Gregorian (because it needed to count a 366th day before it got to December 31).

In fact, The Gregorian would already be ahead of the Julian by March 1 (Gregorian). When the Gregorian Calendar said it was March 1, the Julian Calendar would say it was February 29.




Again, if the Russian Orthodox followed the Julian calendar, then there is no point to celebrate Christmas on Jan. 7th Gregorian because essentially they are superseding the Gregorian calendar over the Julian. They must supersede the Julian over the Gregorian if they follow it, so Jan. 7th Julian would be Dec. 25th Gregorian.

OK. For the sake of this discussion, let's say that the Russian Orthodox Church was an entirely closed system with no contact with the outside world.

They would have been following the Julian Calendar over the centuries, blissfully unaware that the Gregorian Calendar exists for (almost) the rest of the outside world. When the date "December 25th" on their Julian Calendar came around, they would be celebrating Christmas...

...However, if one of them found their way out into our world on that same day and looked at our Gregorian Calendar, our calendar would say it was January 7.



I don't really get what assertion you are trying to make with this story about Putin at Christmas. It's an established fact that when the Gregorian Calendar says it is January 7, the Russian Orthodox Church Calendar says it's December 25 (and vice-versa).

My wife's family was Russian. When her family was still alive, we would go to their house on January 6 and 7 (Gregorian) to celebrate Russian Christmas eve/Christmas.

Are you saying that's wrong? Are you saying the Russian Church Calendar is wrong with respect to how it relates to the Gregorian Calendar?

If you are saying that the Church Calendar/Julian Calendar is wrong, then please explain how it is? The way I see it, the Julian Calendar used by the church has 13 extra days that they have accumulated since the year 46 relative to the Gregorian Calendar. Therefore, with those 13 extra days (total) that they needed to count since the year 46, it would take longer to do that count, and the Julian calendar would fall behind...

...So, Gregorian Jan. 7 = Julian Dec. 25.


edit on 2/26/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Ok, lets look at it this way.

The Julian calendar was 365.25 solar days in a year or 365 days, 6 hours. The Julian calendar was changed to the Gregorian calendar and thus became 365 days 5 hours 29 minutes 12 seconds.

Pope Gregory in 1582 changed the Julian calendar of 365.25 solar days in a year and created the Gregorian calendar and the solar year became 365.2425 or 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, 12 seconds that it takes for the Earth to rotate around the Sun.




"The Gregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar, is internationally the most widely used civil calendar.[1][2][3] It is named for Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in 1582. The calendar was a refinement to the Julian calendar[4] amounting to a 0.002% correction in the length of the year. The motivation for the reform was to bring the date for the celebration of Easter to the time of the year in which it was celebrated when it was introduced by the early Church. The Gregorian reform modified the Julian calendar's scheme of leap years as follows: Every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100, but these centurial years are leap years if they are exactly divisible by 400. For example, the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 are not leap years, but the year 2000 is. In addition to the change in the mean length of the calendar year from 365.25 days (365 days 6 hours) to 365.2425 days (365 days 5 hours 49 minutes 12 seconds), a reduction of 10 minutes 48 seconds per year”


en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see above, there is a 10 minute 48 seconds difference between the Gregorian and Julian solar year per year. Because of that 10.8-minute difference between the Gregorian and Julian calendars, over time and years, the days started to drift between the two calendars.

There are 1440 minutes in a day.

60 minutes x 24 hours = 1440 minutes

1440 minutes/10.8 minutes between the Julian and Gregorian solar year = 133.33 years
or the rate of slip of the Julian and Gregorian Calendars with
respect to each other is:

1 / (365.25 - 365.2425) = 133.333... years. That is one day in every
133.33 years.

The Julian is 10.8 minutes per year longer in time than the Gregorian. This means every 133.33 years, the Julian becomes greater than the Gregorian. Not the Julian becoming one day shorter over 133 years. Thus, the Julian is always ahead.

Since we know this, just look at the beginning of the Mayan baktun cycle starting at 3114 BC. 3114 BC to 325 AD is 3439 total years. The Julian date was Sept 6th 3114 BC and the Gregorian is August 11th, 3114. That is a 26 day difference. 3439/133.33 years = 25.79 days or 26 days.

Now the Gregorian is ahead of the Julian by 13 days? No! It doesn't work out that way. The Julian drifts one day ahead from the Gregorian, not the Julian drifting one day behind the Gregorian every 133.33 years.

So are you telling me that the Gregorian started becoming faster than the Julian and over time on 325 AD, the Gregorian and Julian calendar became the same day and then the Julian started drifting 1 day away from the Gregorian at this time?

So 325 AD to now (2016) is 1691 total years. 1691/133.33 = 12.68 days.

The Julian wouldn't be drifting behind the Gregorian, it still would be drifting ahead of the Gregorian.

3114 BC to 2016 AD = 5130 years/133.33 = 38.47 days between the Gregorian and Julian.




edit on 26-2-2016 by neutrinostargate because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutrinostargate
People think the Gregorian calendar is now ahead of the Julian calendar by 13 days.

Is that the case though?

It seems like the Julian calendar always drifts ahead of the Gregorian calendar, which means the Gregorian calendar is never ahead of the Julian in regards to days.

Currently, Feb. 26th, 2016 (Gregorian) is Feb 13th, 2016. Well that is what they say.

I believe it actually should be Feb. 26th, 2016 (Julian) and Feb. 13th, 2016 (Gregorian).

We can see in this LA Times article that Feb. 25th, 2016 is July 11th, 2017 if you take away leap years.

This LA TIMES article states that Feb. 25th, 2016 would be July 11th, 2016 if you don't count leap years and if you started on 46 B.C.

graphics.latimes.com...

How do you get to July 11th, 2016?

1/(365.2425 - 365) = 4.123 leap years for Gregorian calendar

and

1/(365.25 - 365) = 4 leap years for Julian calendar

2016 plus 46 BC = 2062 years total

2062 years/4.123 years (Gregorian leap years avg.) = 500 days but this is a leap year so it would be 501 days

2062 years/4 years (Julian leap years) = 516 days

Feb. 25th, 2016 plus 501 days = July 10th/11th, 2016 (Gregorian)

or

Feb 25th, 2016 plus 516 days = July 26th, 2016 (Julian).

So it seems that the Julian is always ahead of the Gregorian and not behind it.


Correction: I meant to say 2017 and not 2016 in the above dates. July 11th, 2017 not 2016



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   


" In the Julian calendar, named after Julius Caesar, every fourth year had 366 days rather than 365. Roman astronomers calculated that a year — the time it takes the Earth to revolve around the sun —had a duration of 365.25 days. This method of adding a “leap day” every fourth year averaged out to this determined value.

Except, a year’s length isn’t 365.25 days; it’s actually a bit shorter. This only became noticeable as the centuries passed and the calendar drifted out of sync with the seasons. By the 16th century A.D., people noticed that the first day of spring had drifted 10 days ahead of the intended 20th of March. Basically, history had used a leap-day year 10 more times than was useful.

Recognizing the 10-day error, Pope Gregory XIII had a scholar (Aloysius Liliusa) devise a new system that would keep the calendar in sync with the seasons. This new system changed which years should be considered leap years based on what numbers divide the years evenly. -Aloysius devised a system in which every fourth year was a leap year; however, century years that were divisible 400 were exempted. So, for example, the years 2000 and 1600 were leap years, but not 1900, 1800 or 1700.

While in a 2000-year period, the Julian calendar had 500 leap years; the Gregorian calendar only has 485. This change was based on a calculation that an average year length is 365.2425 days, which was pretty close: the modern measured value is 365.24219 days"


www.livescience.com...

You can see above, the first day of spring drifted 10 days ahead from the March 21st equinox date.

325 AD to 1582 AD = 1257 years/4 years for 1 leap day (Julian) = 314.25 days

325 AD to 1582 AD = 1257 years/4.123 years for 1 day (Gregorian) = 304.87 days

A difference of 9.4 days between the Julian to the Gregorian.

Using this calendar calculator tool:

www.msevans.com...

And plugging in the numbers of 3/21/325 AD and 3/21/1582 AD you can see there are 459,119 days total using the Gregorian calendar.

If it was for the Julian calendar 3/21/325 AD would be March 31, 1582 AD, a 10 day drift from the equinox.

Thus, you would need to subtract 10 days from March 31st, 1582 AD (Julian) to get the accurate Gregorian date of March 21st, 1582




-"At the time of Gregory's reform there had already been a drift of 10 days since the Council of Nicaea, resulting in the vernal equinox falling on 10 or 11 March instead of the ecclesiastically fixed date of 21 March, and if unreformed it would drift further. Lilius proposed that the 10-day drift should be corrected by deleting the Julian leap day on each of its ten occurrences over a period of forty years, thereby providing for a gradual return of the equinox to 21 March.

The second component consisted of an approximation which would provide an accurate yet simple, rule-based calendar. Lilius's formula was a 10-day correction to revert the drift since the Council of Nicaea, and the imposition of a leap day in only 97 years in 400 rather than in 1 year in 4. The proposed rule was that years divisible by 100 would be leap years only if they were divisible by 400 as well.

The 19-year cycle used for the lunar calendar was also to be corrected by one day every 300 or 400 years (8 times in 2500 years) along with corrections for the years that are no longer leap years (i.e., 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, etc.). In fact, a new method for computing the date of Easter was introduced.

When the new calendar was put in use, the error accumulated in the 13 centuries since the Council of Nicaea was corrected by a deletion of 10 days. The Julian calendar day Thursday, 4 October 1582 was followed by the first day of the Gregorian calendar, Friday, 15 October 1582 "


en.wikipedia.org...

You can see above, it is incorrect, the 10 day Julian drift wasn't making the equinox at March 11th but instead at March 30th, which I have shown.

Lilius proposed you have to delete the 10 day Julian leap days, to make the new Gregorian calendar align with the equinox.

But the way they did it was completely wrong. They took the Julian day of Oct. 4th, 1582 and then said to make up for this 10 day difference, we will have the Gregorian start on Oct. 15th, 1582. This is why people think there is a 13 day difference between the Gregorian to Julian calendar now. Or Feb. 26th, 2016 (Gregorian) would be Feb. 13th, 2016 (Julian). This would be incorrect though.

What they should have done removing the 10 days would be take Oct. 15th, 1582 AD Julian and then have the Gregorian start on Oct. 5th, 1582.

It makes much more sense that way and much more accurate.
edit on 26-2-2016 by neutrinostargate because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2016 by neutrinostargate because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: neutrinostargate
Where you are going wrong is trying to track these calendars back to beginning of the Mayan cycle.
There is NO SUCH THING as a "Gregorian date" for 3114 B.C., because the Gregorian calendar did not then exist.

The starting-point of the Julian calendar is obviously the time of Julius Caesar.
The Gregorian calendar has the same notional starting-point, because Gregory's purpose was to get the spring equinox back on the date where Julius placed it.
Before then, the only way to get an accurate date in our terms is to regard the spring equinox as the equivalent of March 21st.
Projecting either calendar back before Julius Caesar is a meaningless and unnecessary exercise, and it's the source of all your puzzlement.

You need to do what we have all suggested many times before. Forget all the calculations you are devising to confuse yourself, and take some time to think through the mechanics.
Julian is an athlete running down a 100 yard track, Gregorian is an athlete running down a 90 yard track.
Since they are running at the same speed, Gregorian is going to reach the end of his track first, over and over again.
That's how he gets ahead.



edit on 27-2-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: [post=20419977]
You need to do what we have all suggested many times before. Forget all the calculations you are devising to confuse yourself, and take some time to think through the mechanics.
Julian is an athlete running down a 100 yard track, Gregorian is an athlete running down a 90 yard track.
Since they are running at the same speed, Gregorian is going to reach the end of his track first, over and over again.
That's how he gets ahead.



Here's another example:

There are two clocks. One has a face that is divided into 24 equal sections (one for each hour of the day), and the other has a day that is divided into the same size sections, but also adds a 25th section. Both clocks are attempting to track the passage of one day -- i.e. to attempt to keep track of one revolution of the Earth. Each section is the same length, so each clock takes the same amount of time to get to the "24".

After one revolution of the Earth, the hand on the shorter-length clock (the 24-hour clock) would be past the 24-hour mark, and would be headed to 1:00 AM of the next day. At that same time, the hand on the other longer clock (the 25-hour clock) would be heading towards the 25th hour of the previous day, not 1:00 AM of the next day.

Now, here's my question to you, 'neutrinostargate':

Which clock would you say is "ahead" -- the shorter 24-hour one that has already marked the passage of that day, or the longer 25-hour one that still has not yet marked the passage of the day?

If you wouldn't mind, please provide an answer and explain your answer.


edit on 2/27/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutrinostargate
You can see above, it is incorrect, the 10 day Julian drift wasn't making the equinox at March 11th but instead at March 30th, which I have shown.


Understanding why the Julian Calendar needed to be modified (modified to become the Gregorian Calendar) is useful:

Prior to 1582, the calendar the Catholic church was using, the Julian Calendar, included too many days over the long run. Because of that, the Julian Calendar was counting too slowly (those extra days took longer to count) -- and due to counting too slowly, it fell behind.

By the 1500s the amount of time it had fallen behind accumulated to be 11 days. So while the traditional calendar date of the spring equinox was around March 21 or 22 according to what was written on the calendar, the actual astronomical equinox (an occurrence that astronomers of the day could mark by looking at the sky) was taking place at a date that church's Julian calendar said was March 11.

This point is important enough to repeat: even though the Julian Calendar said the equinox should be March 21 or 22, the sun in the sky was telling church astronomers that the actual equinox was occurring on March 11 on their Julian Calendar.

To fix this problem, the Church took Julian Calendar it had been using and made two adjustments to it.

First, it took the Julian Calendar and skipped it ahead 11 days in 1582 (what should have been October 5 1582 became October 15 1582) to allow it to catch up to what the astronomical date was. This was only a one-time only thing, and was meant to allow the next astronomical Equinox to fall around March 21 to the 22, which is where the Julian Calendar (as written) said it was supposed to fall.

Secondly, because the old Julian Calendar the church was using accumulated too many days over time, it skipped over one of the Julian leap days every 400 years. This second modification to the Julian Calendar meant that the calendar would not be accumulating that superfluous day over time.

After these two modifications to the Julian Calendar, the Church adopted the adjusted calendar and called it the Gregorian Calendar.


edit on 2/27/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: neutrinostargate
Where you are going wrong is trying to track these calendars back to beginning of the Mayan cycle.
There is NO SUCH THING as a "Gregorian date" for 3114 B.C., because the Gregorian calendar did not then exist.

The starting-point of the Julian calendar is obviously the time of Julius Caesar.
The Gregorian calendar has the same notional starting-point, because Gregory's purpose was to get the spring equinox back on the date where Julius placed it.
Before then, the only way to get an accurate date in our terms is to regard the spring equinox as the equivalent of March 21st.
Projecting either calendar back before Julius Caesar is a meaningless and unnecessary exercise, and it's the source of all your puzzlement.

You need to do what we have all suggested many times before. Forget all the calculations you are devising to confuse yourself, and take some time to think through the mechanics.
Julian is an athlete running down a 100 yard track, Gregorian is an athlete running down a 90 yard track.
Since they are running at the same speed, Gregorian is going to reach the end of his track first, over and over again.
That's how he gets ahead.




So I see your point in regards to the Mayan calendar not having Gregorian then. That is why they start the beginning date at Sept 6th, 3114 BC. So if that is the case, why are people and so many articles then state August 11th, 3114 BC if the Gregorian is irrelevant then? Just a thought.

But that isn't the case for my puzzlement.

Your analogy is this you stated:

"Julian is an athlete running down a 100 yard track, Gregorian is an athlete running down a 90 yard track.
Since they are running at the same speed, Gregorian is going to reach the end of his track first, over and over again.
That's how he gets ahead."

My analogy is this:

Julian is an athlete running down a 100 yard track, Gregorian is an athlete running down the same 100 yard track. But the Gregorian athlete is running slower because it is 10.8 minutes slower per year then the Julian. The Julian is faster, thus, the Julian is going to reach the end of the 100 yard track faster then the Gregorian over and over again. That is how the Julian gets ahead of the Gregorian.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Take 1,872,000 days or a 13 baktun cycle.

1,872,000 days/365 days = 5128.767 years

1,872,000 days/365.25 days (Julian) = 5125.25

1,872,000 days/365.2425 days (Gregorian) = 5125.36

Actually looking at it that way, it does look like the Julian is behind the Gregorian. hmm



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutrinostargate
originally posted by: DISRAELI

Julian is an athlete running down a 100 yard track, Gregorian is an athlete running down the same 100 yard track. But the Gregorian athlete is running slower because it is 10.8 minutes slower per year then the Julian. The Julian is faster, thus, the Julian is going to reach the end of the 100 yard track faster then the Gregorian over and over again. That is how the Julian gets ahead of the Gregorian.


The Gregorian year is 10.8 minutes shorter per year, not 10.8 minutes slower. There's a major difference between "shorter" and "slower".

A year that is shorter actually passes more quickly; a year that is longer passes more slowly.


A Gregorian runner who takes 356.2425 days to cross the finish line will do so 10.8 minutes ahead of the Julian runner, who takes 365.25 days to do so. The Gregorian runs the same distance as the Julian, but the Gregorian takes a shorter amount of time to do so.

Another example is that a person who runs a mile in 3:57 will beat a runner who runs a mile in 4:00.


edit on 2/27/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: neutrinostargate
originally posted by: DISRAELI

Julian is an athlete running down a 100 yard track, Gregorian is an athlete running down the same 100 yard track. But the Gregorian athlete is running slower because it is 10.8 minutes slower per year then the Julian. The Julian is faster, thus, the Julian is going to reach the end of the 100 yard track faster then the Gregorian over and over again. That is how the Julian gets ahead of the Gregorian.


The Gregorian year is 10.8 minutes shorter per year, not 10.8 minutes slower. There's a major difference between "shorter" and "slower".

A year that is shorter actually passes more quickly; a year that is longer passes more slowly.


A Gregorian runner who takes 356.2425 days to cross the finish line will do so 10.8 minutes ahead of the Julian runner, who takes 365.25 days to do so. The Gregorian runs the same distance as the Julian, but the Gregorian takes a shorter amount of time to do so.

A person who runs a mile in 3:57 will beat a runner who runs a mile in 4:00.



Gotcha, makes sense now. Thanks.

So then, from 325 AD to 1582 AD, the Julian was about 10 days behind the March 21st equinox and was March 10th/11th.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutrinostargate
So if that is the case, why are people and so many articles then state August 11th, 3114 BC if the Gregorian is irrelevant then? Just a thought.

That one is easy. They do it because they are obsessed with the Mayan cycle, and they miss the point that both our European calendars effectively begin with Julius Caesar.

Julian is an athlete running down a 100 yard track, Gregorian is an athlete running down the same 100 yard track. But the Gregorian athlete is running slower because it is 10.8 minutes slower per year then the Julian.

We are gradually getting there, not far to go.
"Running at the same speed down different lengths of track" fits the situation better.
Each calendar takes 24 hours to pass from one day to the next; that is "running at the same speed".
But in some years, the Julian runner has to complete 366 days, while the Gregorian runner only has to complete 365 days. That is "being on a shorter track".
Perhaps we can visualise the race as a circuit race, in which the two runners are running at exactly the same speed, but the Gregorian runner is occasionally allowed to take a short-cut while the Julian runner has to go all the way round the bend.
Can you see that the runner who is allowed to take short-cuts will gradually move ahead?

Alternatively, we can have another look at my explanation showing how the effect works itself out through the year;
If the two calendars start on the same date, in a year which is a leap year only on the Julian system, then;
Julian January 1st = Gregorian January 1st
Julian February 28th = Gregorian February 28th
Julian February 29th = Gregorian March 1st
Julian December 30th = Gregorian December 31st
Julian December 31st = Gregorian January 1st (following year)
Read that through and reflect on what happens if that effect repeats every couple of centuries, until we arrive at the present situation of;
Julian December 25th = Gregorian January 7th
Juilan February 14th (today's date) = Gregorian February 27th (today's date)

edit on 27-2-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Ok, did the LA Times article compute the day correctly?

graphics.latimes.com...

Taking away leap years, from today's date of Feb 27th, 2016 it would be July 13th, 2017?

Is that correct?

And how did they get to that number?

The way I see them getting to that number is they started counting it on, or taking away the leap years, 46 BC.

46 BC to 2016 = 2062 total years

Then they took 2062 years/4.123 days Gregorian leap year = 500 days plus 2 more days for leap year 46 BC and this year and arrive at 502 days.

502 days from today's date is July 13th, 2017.

Is that above correct?


edit on 27-2-2016 by neutrinostargate because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
What I really want to find out now is what the date would be not including leap years from the start of the Mayan Long Count.

My number comes out to be 1245 leap year days.

That would mean 1245 leap year year days would have to be added to the Dec. 21st, 2012 date?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: neutrinostargate
So if that is the case, why are people and so many articles then state August 11th, 3114 BC if the Gregorian is irrelevant then? Just a thought.

That one is easy. They do it because they are obsessed with the Mayan cycle, and they miss the point that both our European calendars effectively begin with Julius Caesar.

Julian is an athlete running down a 100 yard track, Gregorian is an athlete running down the same 100 yard track. But the Gregorian athlete is running slower because it is 10.8 minutes slower per year then the Julian.

We are gradually getting there, not far to go.
"Running at the same speed down different lengths of track" fits the situation better.
Each calendar takes 24 hours to pass from one day to the next; that is "running at the same speed".
But in some years, the Julian runner has to complete 366 days, while the Gregorian runner only has to complete 365 days. That is "being on a shorter track".
Perhaps we can visualise the race as a circuit race, in which the two runners are running at exactly the same speed, but the Gregorian runner is occasionally allowed to take a short-cut while the Julian runner has to go all the way round the bend.
Can you see that the runner who is allowed to take short-cuts will gradually move ahead?

Alternatively, we can have another look at my explanation showing how the effect works itself out through the year;
If the two calendars start on the same date, in a year which is a leap year only on the Julian system, then;
Julian January 1st = Gregorian January 1st
Julian February 28th = Gregorian February 28th
Julian February 29th = Gregorian March 1st
Julian December 30th = Gregorian December 31st
Julian December 31st = Gregorian January 1st (following year)
Read that through and reflect on what happens if that effect repeats every couple of centuries, until we arrive at the present situation of;
Julian December 25th = Gregorian January 7th
Juilan February 14th (today's date) = Gregorian February 27th (today's date)


Thank you for your replies.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
The number of days in a year (determined by one revolution of the Earth around the Sun) does not change regardless of what calendar (and human artifact) you use. The solstices and equinoxes occur exactlty that same time regardless.

But if you choose to have a calendar with 200, or 350 or 380 days, then of course that calandar will not match with the real world. And our current calendar of 365.25 days (appox) does its best to match with the real world.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
The number of days in a year (determined by one revolution of the Earth around the Sun) does not change regardless of what calendar (and human artifact) you use. The solstices and equinoxes occur exactlty that same time regardless.

But if you choose to have a calendar with 200, or 350 or 380 days, then of course that calandar will not match with the real world. And our current calendar of 365.25 days (appox) does its best to match with the real world.


Well it is 365.2425 the Gregorian that matches the tropical calendar at 365.242 the most accurately. But interestingly, the Mayans didn't care about leap years at all! I think they placed a greater importance on the cycle of Pleiades with the movement of the Sun, not just the tropical solar year, which is why they didn't include leap years into their 365 Mayan Haab solar year.

Take away leap years from our calendar, and you will arrive at the true end of the 13 baktun Mayan Long Count. I believe that is May 20th, 2016, or June 1st, 2016 but I am not quite sure which one it is.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Soylent Green Is People and DISRAELI, can you see what it would be not including leap years from the beginning of the Long Count date of Sept 6th, 3114 BC until now?

Thanks



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: neutrinostargate
Nutrinostargate said



Gotcha, makes sense now. Thanks.


Oh my gosh! I have been following this post with every expression on my face imaginable. I've learned more than I ever wanted to know about calendars, but I also saw the most impressive display of unending patience. Well done!!!

I had just returned from the store and I had seen a kitchen magnet with a saying that we copied down for you guys. Of course, it is anti-climatic, but since we went through the trouble, albeit nothing compared to what you all have been through, here it is, by H. G. Wells:




We must not allow the clock and the calendar to blind us to the fact that each moment of life is a miracle and a mystery.


Anyway, that was interesting to be a bystander of. Thanks for the opportunity.




new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join