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: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: neutrinostargate




The problem is researchers threw out the Mayan Haab solar year, threw in the Gregorian solar year and arrived at 12/21/21 or 1,872,000 days later. That is 5125.36 years or 5125 years 132 days.


This is not a problem this is the right way to make calculation.

Your calculation going as 1,872,000/365 = 5128,767 or 5128 years 280 days is the number of Mayan Haab years.
But then you are applying this into our Gregorian or Julain calendar reference. This is wrong, you can't add apples with oranges and receive consistent results.

The right way is indeed 1,872,000/365.2425 = 5125.36 Gregorian years

Other method, you can take your Mayan Haab 5128 years but you will need a large correction downward. As in your LA article example it will indeed go somewhat 1245 days ahead of astronomical year. So, if you insist that you want to start your calculation with 5128 Mayan Haab years, in order to get right answer in the frame reference of Gregorian calendar you should subtract 1245 days. And you will receive 21/12/2012.
The date 2016 without this correction is purely Mayan Haab years and not real calendar which all modern world follows. You got it ?

What need to stay constant is the number 1,872,000 days.
So, again. The easier to understand method would be
1,872,000/365.2425 = 5125.36 Gregorian years.


So you can imply 5128 years 280 days or 5128.767 years to the Gregorian calendar. As you can see from August 11th, 3114 BC to May 19th, 2016 is that many days and years.

Of course you can subtract 1245 days or May 19th, 2016 and get to 12/21/12.

How do you think that LA Times article got to July 15th, 2017? LOL

In order to see what the date of the Haab 5128.767 years with the Gregorian, take 1,873,245 days or 1,872,000 days plus 1245 days. 1,873,245/365.2425 (Gregorian) = 5128.77 which is an exact match for what it would be on May 19th, 2016.

Not sure why you are argueing with this?

Do you still not understand the basic problem that Gregorian includes leap days and the Mayans don't??? So here is a very basic question. What calendar is best to find out the true end date? The one that includes leap days or the one that doesn't?
edit on 1-3-2016 by neutrinostargate because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
"Battle of the calendars

The Gregorian calendar was first adopted in Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain in 1582. It is regarded as one of the most accurate calendars in use today. But it maintains a margin of error of about 27 seconds per year - that's one day in every 3236 years. It's fourth in line for accuracy behind the Mayan calendar from about 2000 B.C.E. (margin of error: one day in every 6500 years)"

"And does all this leaping do us any good? We do a fair bit of leaping about - even adjusting Universal Time with leap seconds to account for irregular changes in the Earth's rotation. It can be very important for people to feel they are in sync with time and astronomical events, for instance, for religious reasons, such as Easter, which is tied to the Spring Equinox. But if not for religious or, say, environmental reasons, does it really matter if the seasons drift from month to month, or if we lose hours and days over thousands of years? Would we even notice?"

www.dw.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
If you want apples and apples. 5125.36 years Gregorian date/4.123 Gregorian years or 1 leap day per 4.123 years = 1243 days plus this year being leap year = 1244 days



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   


So here is a very basic question. What calendar is best to find out the true end date? The one that includes leap days or the one that doesn't?


Theoretically if all you need is to count exact 1,872,000 days it doesn't matter

But you need to do it right. Apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

Since our start date August 11th, 3114 BC expressed as Gregorian date it seems to me easier that you convert 1,872,000 days into number of Gregorian years.

August 11th, 3114 BC Gregorian + 5128,767 Haab Years != automatically some date in Gregorian calendar. You still need to make correction for leap days into meaningful Gregorian date. It doesn't matter that Maya didn't used leap years. We can make calculations with Gregorian or Julian or even Haab date as long as we adding apples with apples and making correct adjustments, such that 1.872,000 days is constant.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neutrinostargate




It's fourth in line for accuracy behind the Mayan calendar from about 2000 B.C.E. (margin of error: one day in every 6500 years)"

I think you are more an expert in the matters of Mayan calendars than the author of this ridiculous claim



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neutrinostargate

A little snippet. I hope it helps with your thread.



The Gregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar, is internationally the most widely used civil calendar. It is named for Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in October 1582.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: PPFkid
a reply to: neutrinostargate

A little snippet. I hope it helps with your thread.



The Gregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar, is internationally the most widely used civil calendar. It is named for Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in October 1582.


Um what? LOL I quoted that on this thread earlier. So what is your point? I already know that and doesn't help with my thread. kid
edit on 1-3-2016 by neutrinostargate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: neutrinostargate




It's fourth in line for accuracy behind the Mayan calendar from about 2000 B.C.E. (margin of error: one day in every 6500 years)"

I think you are more an expert in the matters of Mayan calendars than the author of this ridiculous claim


Actually it is correct

Mayan calendar ~2000 BCE 365.242036 days 13 sec/year (1 day in 6500 years)

Gregorian calendar 1582 CE 365.2425 days 27 sec/year (1 day in 3236 years)

Jewish calendar 9th century CE 365.246822 days 7 min/year (1 day in 216 years)

Julian calendar 45 BCE 365.25 days 11 min/year (1 day in 128 years)

www.timeanddate.com...

The Mayans somehow understand the tropical year in their calendar, and their tropical year approx was even closer then the Gregorian!



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: kitzik



So here is a very basic question. What calendar is best to find out the true end date? The one that includes leap days or the one that doesn't?


Theoretically if all you need is to count exact 1,872,000 days it doesn't matter

But you need to do it right. Apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

Since our start date August 11th, 3114 BC expressed as Gregorian date it seems to me easier that you convert 1,872,000 days into number of Gregorian years.

August 11th, 3114 BC Gregorian + 5128,767 Haab Years != automatically some date in Gregorian calendar. You still need to make correction for leap days into meaningful Gregorian date. It doesn't matter that Maya didn't used leap years. We can make calculations with Gregorian or Julian or even Haab date as long as we adding apples with apples and making correct adjustments, such that 1.872,000 days is constant.



We have to use start date Sept 6th, 3114 BC and not August 11th, 3114 BC.

Sept 6th, 3114 BC is Julian Day Number (JDN) = 584,283 or that many days from Jan 1st, 4117 BC (Julian). There is no such thing has a beginning date in the Gregorian for that. It is plain and simply Julian day. The Julian Day Number is the count in the amount of days using a Julian period which is 7980 years. The Julian period incorporate the Julian calendar or 365.25 solar days.

So in theory, August 11th, 3114 BC is wrong for the Mayan start date.

Since there is no such thing as a Gregorian beginning date or Jan 1st, 4117 BC (Julian) being a Gregorian date, August 11th, 3114 BC is irrelevant and it would be the wrong GMT correlation as well.

That is why this calculator tool uses Sept 6th, 3114 BC as the beginning Mayan date and 1,872,000 days later is Dec. 21st, 2012 (Gregorian) or more correctly, Dec. 8th, 2012 (Julian).

Sept 6th, 3114 BC (Julian) plus 1,872,000 days = Dec. 8th, 2012 (Julian)

www.msevans.com...


edit on 1-3-2016 by neutrinostargate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutrinostargate

originally posted by: PPFkid
a reply to: neutrinostargate

A little snippet. I hope it helps with your thread.



The Gregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar, is internationally the most widely used civil calendar. It is named for Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in October 1582.


Um what? LOL I quoted that on this thread earlier. So what is your point? I already know that and doesn't help with my thread. kid



Sorry LOL. I must of missed that post. As I was flicking and reading threw the thread. Son.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
3114 BC plus 2016 AD = 5126 total years/4 years for 1 leap day = 1282 and then 1 leap day in 3114 and 1 leap day in 2016

This person has the same idea that was posted on Dec. 23rd, 2012,




"They always forget about leap year. Now calculate out 5126 years divided by four adds another 1282 days, divide by 365 days and it is clear that we have another 3.5 years to go before the end. Whew, what luck, I have my last car payment due then. Start your real planning now."


www.livescience.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: PPFkid

originally posted by: neutrinostargate

originally posted by: PPFkid
a reply to: neutrinostargate

A little snippet. I hope it helps with your thread.



The Gregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar, is internationally the most widely used civil calendar. It is named for Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in October 1582.


Um what? LOL I quoted that on this thread earlier. So what is your point? I already know that and doesn't help with my thread. kid



Sorry LOL. I must of missed that post. As I was flicking and reading threw the thread. Son.


No problem. Thanks for reading



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
So going straight Julian to Julian.

Sept. 6th 3114 BC (Julian) which is the correct GMT correlation date of 584,283 and not August 11th, 3114 BC (Gregorian) plus 1,872,000 days = Dec. 8th, 2012 (Julian).

There is a 1284 day leap year difference from 3114 BC to 2016.

Add 1284 days to Dec. 8th, 2012 (Julian) and you will arrive at June 14th, 2016 (Julian)

But there was a 26 day difference between the Gregorian and Julian calendar at the start of the Mayan 13th baktun cycle. In order to incorporate this correctly, we have to subtract 26 days from June 14th, 2016 (Julian) to arrive at the correct Julian date of May 19th, 2016 (Julian) or June 1st, 2016 (Gregorian).
edit on 1-3-2016 by neutrinostargate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutrinostargate

originally posted by: kitzik



So here is a very basic question. What calendar is best to find out the true end date? The one that includes leap days or the one that doesn't?


Theoretically if all you need is to count exact 1,872,000 days it doesn't matter

But you need to do it right. Apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

Since our start date August 11th, 3114 BC expressed as Gregorian date it seems to me easier that you convert 1,872,000 days into number of Gregorian years.

August 11th, 3114 BC Gregorian + 5128,767 Haab Years != automatically some date in Gregorian calendar. You still need to make correction for leap days into meaningful Gregorian date. It doesn't matter that Maya didn't used leap years. We can make calculations with Gregorian or Julian or even Haab date as long as we adding apples with apples and making correct adjustments, such that 1.872,000 days is constant.



We have to use start date Sept 6th, 3114 BC and not August 11th, 3114 BC.

Sept 6th, 3114 BC is Julian Day Number (JDN) = 584,283 or that many days from Jan 1st, 4117 BC (Julian). There is no such thing has a beginning date in the Gregorian for that. It is plain and simply Julian day. The Julian Day Number is the count in the amount of days using a Julian period which is 7980 years. The Julian period incorporate the Julian calendar or 365.25 solar days.

So in theory, August 11th, 3114 BC is wrong for the Mayan start date.

Since there is no such thing as a Gregorian beginning date or Jan 1st, 4117 BC (Julian) being a Gregorian date, August 11th, 3114 BC is irrelevant and it would be the wrong GMT correlation as well.

That is why this calculator tool uses Sept 6th, 3114 BC as the beginning Mayan date and 1,872,000 days later is Dec. 21st, 2012 (Gregorian) or more correctly, Dec. 8th, 2012 (Julian).

Sept 6th, 3114 BC (Julian) plus 1,872,000 days = Dec. 8th, 2012 (Julian)

www.msevans.com...



CORRECTION: It is Jan 1st, 4713 BC (Julian) not Jan 1st 4117 BC



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutrinostargate
So going straight Julian to Julian.

Sept. 6th 3114 BC (Julian) which is the correct GMT correlation date of 584,283 and not August 11th, 3114 BC (Gregorian) plus 1,872,000 days = Dec. 8th, 2012 (Julian).

There is a 1284 day leap year difference from 3114 BC to 2016...

Wouldn't all of this only be true if the Gregorian or Julian Calendar began diverging from the Mayan Calendar back in 3114 BC?

The way it seems to me, If the Gregorian calendar was in sync back in 1582 with astronomical observations, then any divergence from the Mayan Calendar would have only been starting in 1582, not thousands of years earlier.

That's like saying if I start using a calendar today with only 365 days in this year (2016) instead of the 366 days due to the leap year, then I would not be off by only one day come Dec. 31, but I'd be off by 100 days since the year 1916. However, it wouldn't be true that my calendar is off by 100 days come Dec. 31 this year, because I only started using that calendar this year, not 1916, so it only started diverging this year, not since 1916.


Unless you can explain why you are talking about the divergence of the Julian or Gregorian Calendar relative to the Mayan Calendar back in 3000 or 4000 BC, before the Julian or Gregorian calendars even exited (how can a calendar diverge if it doesn't exist?), then I'm going to have to think that there is something wrong with your methodology.


edit on 3/3/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: neutrinostargate
So going straight Julian to Julian.

Sept. 6th 3114 BC (Julian) which is the correct GMT correlation date of 584,283 and not August 11th, 3114 BC (Gregorian) plus 1,872,000 days = Dec. 8th, 2012 (Julian).

There is a 1284 day leap year difference from 3114 BC to 2016...

Wouldn't all of this only be true if the Gregorian or Julian Calendar began diverging from the Mayan Calendar back in 3114 BC?

The way it seems to me, If the Gregorian calendar was in sync back in 1582 with astronomical observations, then any divergence from the Mayan Calendar would have only been starting in 1582, not thousands of years earlier.

That's like saying if I start using a calendar today with only 365 days in this year (2016) instead of the 366 days due to the leap year, then I would not be off by only one day come Dec. 31, but I'd be off by 100 days since the year 1916. However, it wouldn't be true that my calendar is off by 100 days come Dec. 31 this year, because I only started using that calendar this year, not 1916, so it only started diverging this year, not since 1916.


Unless you can explain why you are talking about the divergence of the Julian or Gregorian Calendar relative to the Mayan Calendar back in 3000 or 4000 BC, before the Julian or Gregorian calendars even exited (how can a calendar diverge if it doesn't exist?), then I'm going to have to think that there is something wrong with your methodology.



Good question, well technically the Gregorian calendar started to diverge from the Julian on 325 AD. Then 1582, they removed 10 days from the calendar, since there was a 10 day difference between the Gregorian and Julian at that time. Since 1582 AD, there has been an additional 3 day difference. It is 1 day divergent every 133.33 years between Gregorian and Julian.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutrinostargate

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: neutrinostargate
So going straight Julian to Julian.

Sept. 6th 3114 BC (Julian) which is the correct GMT correlation date of 584,283 and not August 11th, 3114 BC (Gregorian) plus 1,872,000 days = Dec. 8th, 2012 (Julian).

There is a 1284 day leap year difference from 3114 BC to 2016...

Wouldn't all of this only be true if the Gregorian or Julian Calendar began diverging from the Mayan Calendar back in 3114 BC?

The way it seems to me, If the Gregorian calendar was in sync back in 1582 with astronomical observations, then any divergence from the Mayan Calendar would have only been starting in 1582, not thousands of years earlier.

That's like saying if I start using a calendar today with only 365 days in this year (2016) instead of the 366 days due to the leap year, then I would not be off by only one day come Dec. 31, but I'd be off by 100 days since the year 1916. However, it wouldn't be true that my calendar is off by 100 days come Dec. 31 this year, because I only started using that calendar this year, not 1916, so it only started diverging this year, not since 1916.


Unless you can explain why you are talking about the divergence of the Julian or Gregorian Calendar relative to the Mayan Calendar back in 3000 or 4000 BC, before the Julian or Gregorian calendars even exited (how can a calendar diverge if it doesn't exist?), then I'm going to have to think that there is something wrong with your methodology.



Good question, well technically the Gregorian calendar started to diverge from the Julian on 325 AD. Then 1582, they removed 10 days from the calendar, since there was a 10 day difference between the Gregorian and Julian at that time. Since 1582 AD, there has been an additional 3 day difference. It is 1 day divergent every 133.33 years between Gregorian and Julian.


No. The Gregorian Calendar was not around in 325 AD, so it wasn't diverging at that time.

When the Gregorian Calendar went into effect on October 15, 1582, it was in sync with astronomical observations at that time, so it wasn't diverging from anything. The fact that the day before according to the previous Julian calendar was October 4, 1582 is not relevant, because the Gregorian calendar did not begin until the next day -- at which point the Gregorian Calendar synchronized itself with astronomical observations, and told us that the day was October 15, 1582.

So on the day when the Gregorian Calendar began, it was correct with astronomical observations at that time and accurate and precise as written to continue to be in sync with astronomical observations.

Actually, it isn't exactly precise and accurate as written to continue to be in sync with astronomical observations; there is one issue. Over a period of a few thousand years, the calendar would slowly accrue another extra day. One proposal to correct this would be that years divisible by 4000 (the year 4000, 8000, etc.) would be common years instead of leap years. Right now, any year divisible by 100 is NOT a leap year (a non-leap year is called a "common year") EXCEPT if that year is divisible by 400....

So the years 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500, etc would NOT be leap years, but the years 2000, 2400, 2800, etc. would be leap years. This is where your "every 133.33 years" comes from, which may be true as an average, but it isn't true in practice/not the way the calendar is enacted. The Gregorian calendar is enacted in such a way that it diverges from the Julian calendar one day every 100 years -- but for only 300 years out of 400. That may avergae out to one day every 133,33 years", but nothing special happens on the calendars "every 133.33 years". Rather, the actual divergence on the calendars happen (as I said) every 100 years, but only 300 years out of 400).

This skipping of centennial leap years 300 years out of 400 years is the way the Gregorian Calendar fine-tunes its precision and accuracy, just like the proposal (made by astronomer Sir John Herschel) to add years divisible by 4000 to the list of common years in order would fine-tune the Gregorian Calendar even further.

edit on 3/6/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: neutrinostargate

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: neutrinostargate
So going straight Julian to Julian.

Sept. 6th 3114 BC (Julian) which is the correct GMT correlation date of 584,283 and not August 11th, 3114 BC (Gregorian) plus 1,872,000 days = Dec. 8th, 2012 (Julian).

There is a 1284 day leap year difference from 3114 BC to 2016...

Wouldn't all of this only be true if the Gregorian or Julian Calendar began diverging from the Mayan Calendar back in 3114 BC?

The way it seems to me, If the Gregorian calendar was in sync back in 1582 with astronomical observations, then any divergence from the Mayan Calendar would have only been starting in 1582, not thousands of years earlier.

That's like saying if I start using a calendar today with only 365 days in this year (2016) instead of the 366 days due to the leap year, then I would not be off by only one day come Dec. 31, but I'd be off by 100 days since the year 1916. However, it wouldn't be true that my calendar is off by 100 days come Dec. 31 this year, because I only started using that calendar this year, not 1916, so it only started diverging this year, not since 1916.


Unless you can explain why you are talking about the divergence of the Julian or Gregorian Calendar relative to the Mayan Calendar back in 3000 or 4000 BC, before the Julian or Gregorian calendars even exited (how can a calendar diverge if it doesn't exist?), then I'm going to have to think that there is something wrong with your methodology.



Good question, well technically the Gregorian calendar started to diverge from the Julian on 325 AD. Then 1582, they removed 10 days from the calendar, since there was a 10 day difference between the Gregorian and Julian at that time. Since 1582 AD, there has been an additional 3 day difference. It is 1 day divergent every 133.33 years between Gregorian and Julian.


No. The Gregorian Calendar was not around in 325 AD, so it wasn't diverging at that time.

When the Gregorian Calendar went into effect on October 15, 1582, it was in sync with astronomical observations at that time, so it wasn't diverging from anything. The fact that the day before according to the previous Julian calendar was October 4, 1582 is not relevant, because the Gregorian calendar did not begin until the next day -- at which point the Gregorian Calendar synchronized itself with astronomical observations, and told us that the day was October 15, 1582.

So on the day when the Gregorian Calendar began, it was correct with astronomical observations at that time and accurate and precise as written to continue to be in sync with astronomical observations.

Actually, it isn't exactly precise and accurate as written to continue to be in sync with astronomical observations; there is one issue. Over a period of a few thousand years, the calendar would slowly accrue another extra day. One proposal to correct this would be that years divisible by 4000 (the year 4000, 8000, etc.) would be common years instead of leap years. Right now, any year divisible by 100 is NOT a leap year (a non-leap year is called a "common year") EXCEPT if that year is divisible by 400....

So the years 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500, etc would NOT be leap years, but the years 2000, 2400, 2800, etc. would be leap years. This is where your "every 133.33 years" comes from, which may be true as an average, but it isn't true in practice/not the way the calendar is enacted. The Gregorian calendar is enacted in such a way that it diverges from the Julian calendar one day every 100 years -- but for only 300 years out of 400. That may avergae out to one day every 133,33 years", but nothing special happens on the calendars "every 133.33 years". Rather, the actual divergence on the calendars happen (as I said) every 100 years, but only 300 years out of 400).

This skipping of centennial leap years 300 years out of 400 years is the way the Gregorian Calendar fine-tunes its precision and accuracy, just like the proposal (made by astronomer Sir John Herschel) to add years divisible by 4000 to the list of common years in order would fine-tune the Gregorian Calendar even further.


Ok, to better explain and yes you are correct, the Gregorian wasn't around at 325 AD. The Julian calendar was diverging from the tropical solar year more at this time and before that time and from 325 AD to 1582.

In 1582 they removed 10 days from the calendar (the divergent from the Julian year to the tropical year from 325 to 1582 AD) to help the Gregorian match the tropical year and precession better. Then at this time, there has been a 3 day difference until now in which the Gregorian and Julian have drifted away from each other, but the Gregorian year is still more correct dealing with the tropical year then the Julian year.

When dealing with longer periods of time, the Julian year compared to the tropical year drifts 1 day every 128 years. The Gregorian year compared to the tropical year drifts 1 day every 3236 or some years. I think I have showed this before.

And every 133.333 years, the Gregorian and the Julian drift away from each other. That is a fact.

So not really sure how this affects anything with my Mayan end of the 13th baktun calculations that you think it does.


edit on 6-3-2016 by neutrinostargate because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2016 by neutrinostargate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutrinostargate

In 1582 they removed 10 days from the calendar (the divergent from the Julian year to the tropical year from 325 to 1582 AD) to help the Gregorian match the tropical year and precession better. Then at this time, there has been a 3 day difference until now in which the Gregorian and Julian have drifted away from each other, but the Gregorian year is still more correct dealing with the tropical year then the Julian year.

No, the Gregorian hadn't diverged 10 days from the Julian by 1582 because the Gregorian didn't exist until 1582.

In 1582 when the Gregorian started, they decided that they would start in on October 15, and that start day would be in sync with the "astronomical" October 15 (resulting from the March Equinox falling around March 20). Granted, that would have been October 5th according to the Julian, but once the Gregorian began, what the Julian said was no longer relevant.


When dealing with longer periods of time, the Julian year compared to the tropical year drifts 1 day every 128 years. The Gregorian year compared to the tropical year drifts 1 day every 3236 or some years. I think I have showed this before.

And every 133.333 years, the Gregorian and the Julian drift away from each other. That is a fact.

No. They drift away from each other only on centennial years that are not divisible by 400. Therefore, they drifted one day from each other on Julian Feb 29, 1700 (which was Gregorian March 1, 1700). They drifted apart another day on Julian Feb 29 1800 (Gregorian March 1, 1800), and another day on Julian Feb 29, 1900 (Gregorian March 1, 1900).

So the two Calendars drifted apart a total of 3 days since the Gregorian Calendar began in 1582 -- one day in each of the years 1700, 1800, and 1900. The next time the one-day drift will occur will be 200 years after that latest one in 1900, in the year 2100. The year 2100 will have a "Feb 29" according to the Julian Calendar, but it wont have a Feb 29 according to the Gregorian Calendar. So by the year 2100, the March Equinox will still occur on or around March 20 on the Gregorian Calendar, but that equinox would draft backward one more day on the Julian Calendar -- a total of 4 days drift since the beginning of the Gregorian calendar (plus the 10 days that the Gregorian Calendar originally took away versus the Julian Calendar, for a total of 14 days difference). 100 years later, in the year 2200, the drift will occur again. And again 100 years after that in 2300.

Put it this way: The calendars drifted part by one day in 1700. However, the next time they drifted was 100 years layer -- in 1800 -- NOT 133.33 years later.


edit on 3/6/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I hate to rain on this parade, but if you count from 43 B.C. to the present, you will be one entire year ahead of 2016 A.D. This occurs because the Romans never had a year zero. One B.C. is followed by One A.D. Go to some Indian sites where they are calculating the coming Golden Age in the Kali Yuga epoch. They put ( + 1 ) in between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. Their calendars are much, much older, than either the Julian or the Gregorian.

Does this bite anyone?? You bet it does. Nostradamus's "In the year 1999" isn't 1999 A.D. but rather Dec. 31st, 2000. Then adding seven months brings this "King of Terror" verse up to a date in our Gregorian month of July, 2001. He was using a Jewish calendar, which is also much older than either the Julian or Gregorian. His months have 28 days, so there are extra days in our common wall calendars. Subtract them from July 31 and you get July 15th. Subtract them from the shorter 28 day month, which seems a little off, but you get July 12-13 depending on your local time zone.

Now, the Great King of Terror comes from the East, and the resurrected King of the Mongols comes from the West, with the resulting collision being two months later, on 9-11, 2001 A.D. You can taste this plot by doing the magic square, which inserts "Isoruku" or the Japanese # 56, into their 47 Heavenly Warriors, or 47 Ronin. Fifty Six years after Gen. MacArthur, poked a sharp stick into their Emperor's eye, on Aug. 30-31, 1945, brings you to Sept. 1st 2001. Adding pairs of numbers in the magic square, of 4,5,6,& 7, gives 9-11-13-7, or that same time interval between the two Kings of 1999, and the Attacks on New York City. Reading the magic square backwards in true Japanese literary fashion, gives their Chem and Bio Warfare installation, in Manchuria, Unit 731, and the Japanese and European dating of the eleventh day of the Ninth month. When you understand how to really read these divergent calendars, you may see why they flubbed their second Pearl Harbor attack. The heroic passengers on Flight 93 stopped the main attack with bio chem agents into Wash. D.C. in its tracks, when they rushed the cockpit, over Shanksberg, P.A.

I don't know for how many years those 47 Japanese Samurai laid low before they gathered to wipe out the evil war lord who murdered their master. But now you should grasp that these modern 47 Ronin laid low for 56 years to honor Adm. Yamamoto's "will", which he said would go on, if he were to be killed in the coming War, back about 1939.

Their secret Unit 731 is part of this ( 4, 5, 6, & 7 ) magic square, and Adm. Yamamoto must have known full well of its existence, and may have in fact named it, as part of his long term revenge strategy. Kind of a "Last Ditch Attack", but which Nostradamus predicted precisely, down to July 12th, 2001 A.D., here, out in the Western U.S. I must leave you guessing, but there are other quatrains which flesh this out. One is the "harley boy" quatrain, C. V. Q. 74. Using the preceding C.4 + C.5, plus the normal C.V. gives 9-11 at 45 degrees North. But here you need to read the verse itself.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join