Tricked again? Yay or nay

Should we be using a 364-day calendar as suggested by the angel in The Book of Enoch?

This guy thinks so. www.meridianmagazine.com...

A basic overview is that there are 12 months with 30 days totalling 360 days + 4 intercalary days which would represent the solstices/equinoxes of their respective seasons. However, it doesn't take much skill in mathematics to know that this would fall short of the average 365.2422 days needed to maintain alliance with the seasons.

However, it is proposed that the 364-day calendar should have a primary goal of aligning with the seasons and a secondary goal of aligning with the lunar cycle. It's suggested that the new year should align approximately with the new moon.

The lunar cycle is 354 days, 10 less than 364 days as proposed. However, just as we see with the Hebrew lunar calendar, we can maintain alignment with the sun by adding a 30-day lunar month every 3rd year.

When taking that into consideration and averaging the days needed to maintain alliance with the seasons, our current Gregorian calendar maintains an average of 365.2425 days, the previous Julian calendar maintained an average of 365.25 days, however the proposed calendar would average 365.2423 days, which is much closer to the 365.2422 days average of our year.

This benefits both religious aspects as well as scientific and astronomical branches alike. Each quarter of the year would begin on a Sunday as well as keeping a 7-day-week cycle year round. Sure, if your birthday falls on Wednesday it will always be on Wednesday, but atleast it is more accurate. Also, the solstices/equinoxes would be emphasized on the calendar and would likely please many astronomers. More scientifically accurate and religiously pleasing at the same time? We don't reach that conclusion very often.


Your thoughts - have we been had and tricked into somehow worshipping a sun god or something of the sort? Has humanity fooled itself again? Also, what kind of benefit would this have for those that may have instituted the current Gregorian calendar in hopes of leading us astray?

edit: just now learning to spell

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

Thank you for that early morning brain food.
I sometime wonder how the calendar (s) start date (s) were determined.
Reading what you wrote, and just slamming it around in the grey matter files very quickly, made me think that, could this calendar that we're using, somehow have us very slowly, going out of sync, there by retarding our measurements and contributing to the noticeable shifting of seasons?
What has been attributed to global warming and earth changes, could it in part be a very subtle, noticeable over an extended period, measurement flaw?
Just a thought as to why I'm cutting more grass at the end of November, and removing more snow at the end of April.
Very good post, thanks again.

You should watch "The Arrivals". www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you haven't yet. Be warned though, some of the info is hard to grasp. Its a very informative group of videos. I like the videos of how people worshipped the sun god.

Take it with a grain of salt. Because, as with anything you see, you can't believe it all.

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


Right. I don't know much about the Gregorian calendar and if there were adjustments made to account for the "loss of time" we experienced during the use of the Julian calendar.

Caesar's calendar, which consisted of eleven months of 30 or 31 days and a 28-day February (extended to 29 days every fourth year), was actually quite accurate: it erred from the real solar calendar by only 11½ minutes a year. After centuries, though, even a small inaccuracy like this adds up. By the sixteenth century, it had put the Julian calendar behind the solar one by 10 days.

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII ordered the advancement of the calendar by 10 days and introduced a new corrective device to curb further error: century years such as 1700 or 1800 would no longer be counted as leap years, unless they were (like 1600 or 2000) divisible by 400.

If somewhat inelegant, this system is undeniably effective, and is still in official use in the United States. The Gregorian calendar year differs from the solar year by only 26 seconds—accurate enough for most mortals, since this only adds up to one day's difference every 3,323 years.

www.infoplease.com...

I think it'd be interesting to calculate and account for what the difference actually is and see where we stand today.

I haven't done the maths involved but I'm guess the Epoch-ial calendar would be much closer to the actual solar year, maybe about 5-10 seconds off seeing as how the Gregorian averages 365.2425 and the Epoch-ial would average 365.2423 and the actual solar year is 365.2422

reply to post by havok


I have in fact seen "The Arrivals" but thanks for reminding me it's still around.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


I like that, makes everything look nice and neat compared to our current calendar system. This 30 day lunar month every third year thing, We do the normal two year calendar and then on the third add this lunar month and the next year revert back to the normal year? I either missed that point in the linked article or it wasn't there in which to see. I was also thinking, isn't the lunar month 28 days? Why add an extra two days and call it a lunar month?

our current Gregorian calendar maintains an average of 365.2425 days, ... however the proposed calendar would average 365.2423 days, which is much closer to the 365.2422 days average of our year.

There is no special difficulty about matching the true average solar year to any desired precision using the common-and-leap year system. It's just that the Gregorian Calendar hasn't been in operation long enough to justify any adjustments beyond those of its 400-year cycle.

Add a day every 4 years, except for century years, EXCEPT for century years divisible by 400:

365 + 1/4 - 1/100 + 1/400 = 365 + .25 - .01 + .0025 = 365.2425

Too much, by about 3 ten-thousandths of a day per year.

However, it is obvious that we need only skip adding that extra day during selected years divisible by 400, on about average 3 skips every 10,000 years. Or, if you prefer, about 3 out of every twenty-five 400-year cycles.

We haven't been operating the calendar long enough for the first "extra-Gregorian" adjustment to have fallen due. And nothing's on fire. The total error each 400 years is about 3 hours (400 years * .0003 days/year * 24 hours/day).

Bottom line: There is nothing about a lunar calendar that is inherently more accurate on average than the solar calendar principles now in use. When we get 'round to it, we'll pass on the special century leap day once in a while. Well, not us, but our descendants. Our remote descendants.

reply to post by sirnex


I think the only reason it'd be referred to as a "lunar calendar" is because of its secondary goal of aligning to the lunar cycle.

Also, I believe the most common method of expressing the lunar cycle is with synodic months which are about 29.5 days, measured from new moon to new moon.

reply to post by eight bits


I completely understand that we could always adjust our current system but wouldn't it be much more efficient to simply switch systems and not have to worry about the adjustments further down the line? Isn't science supposed to be as accurate as possible in our 'current' state?

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex

 

I think the only reason it'd be referred to as a "lunar calendar" is because of its secondary goal of aligning to the lunar cycle.

Also, I believe the most common method of expressing the lunar cycle is with synodic months which are about 29.5 days, measured from new moon to new moon.

Ah OK, thanks for clearing that up for me! Now we need to get people to accept this cleaner looking calendar system! I love this method, it really makes everything appear to work together!

I checked out wikipedia and it mentions adding a week the the end of the year every seventh year called a sabbatical year.

Wiki: Enoch Calendar

Wiki: Shmita (Sabbatical Year)

reply to post by sirnex


There have been a few that were similar to this set up that were proposed back in the 1930's to around the 50's. I think it even has this in that article. It was proposed as the World Calendar but instead of adding a full 30day-cycle every 3 years it added a 1 or 2 days annually to maintain alignment with the seasons. It was rejected by the religious because it would break the 7-day-week cycle.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex

 

There have been a few that were similar to this set up that were proposed back in the 1930's to around the 50's. I think it even has this in that article. It was proposed as the World Calendar but instead of adding a full 30day-cycle every 3 years it added a 1 or 2 days annually to maintain alignment with the seasons. It was rejected by the religious because it would break the 7-day-week cycle.

Aesthetically, I prefer either the addition of the lunar month every third year or the sabbatical year every seventh. I'm also partial to the seven day week system myself too lol.

I've been trying to search for an online calendar that would convert dates to this system, no luck so far. I would adopt it more easily if such a conversion system were available, or if I were good with math and could convert the dates myself.

This actually got me thinking of how the whole BC/AD system came about and why we do the whole year 0 thing. Going to have to look into that one tomorrow. Damn, you got my mind reeling with questions about our calendar system now, something I've never even given much thought to! Thanks.

"The Celtic solar year was called the circle of Baal and was divided into halves."

I think you will find some very intriguing information concerning various calendars and time systems at this website.



www.bookpump.com...

Originally posted by sirnex
I checked out wikipedia and it mentions adding a week the the end of the year every seventh year called a sabbatical year.

Wiki: Enoch Calendar

Wiki: Shmita (Sabbatical Year)

Do you know if the 7 and 4 year sabbatical proposal would be as accurate as the tri-yearly addition of a lunar 30-day-month cycle?

If i was more mathematically inclined I guess I could do the maths myself but unfortunately I'm not. 84 is the LCD of 7 4 and 3 so I guess you could start there.

Originally posted by Alethea

"The Celtic solar year was called the circle of Baal and was divided into halves."

I think you will find some very intriguing information concerning various calendars and time systems at this website.



www.bookpump.com...

That'd be an excellent resource if only I knew more about Celtic culture. Unfortunately, I don't have many books that I could examine for more information. Most ebooks I have found tend to be for those already in the know with Celtic culture.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Hey, I found this and thought it might interest you especially if we apply it to the Enoch Calendar. This is called the Compass of Enoch. I'm not so sure about it being used as a calculator as I suck at math and can't figure out how to use it as such and it seems vague in how it's used as one, but as using it for a pendulum based clock it appears to work pretty flawlessly from what I can tell. Seems the book of Enoch has some pretty decent information in it.

reply to post by sirnex

Using Tracy Twyman’s theory (predicated upon the Compass of Enoch) that time may once have been calculated in sums of 13, 26, 52 and so on as my point of departure, I immediately arrived at some very specific results. In her system there are 13 months in a year, 26 hours in a day, and 52 weeks in a year. In other words, they are all multiples of thirteen. There are also 52 seconds in a minute and 52 minutes in an hour. Redefining the measuring of hours, minutes, seconds, etc, would seem utterly, gratuitous, except for the fact that the numbers all add up, and possess a sense of inner logic above and beyond our own current system of reckoning time. The numbers all echo one another. The smallest measurement is defined by the same number of component units as the largest: the 52 seconds in a minute echo the 52 weeks in a year. Note also that the day has 52 half-hours. More stunningly, a week is composed of 364 half-hours, which reflect precisely the Golden Year’s 364 days. So each unit of measure can be shown to coincide precisely with each other unit of measure. Thos which don’t are multiples of one another.

I find that particular passage very interesting. Our current 60-minute 60 second 52 weeks doesn't seem like it fits as well as 52seconds - 52 minutes - 52 weeks..... 13 months in a year- 26 hours in a day- 52 weeks in a year - 91 days in a season - 364 days in a year, it's all based off of 13 as the LCD.

edit to add: I also find it interesting that there are 13 original zodiacs, Ophiucus being the 13th.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

I completely understand that we could always adjust our current system but wouldn't it be much more efficient to simply switch systems and not have to worry about the adjustments further down the line?

Who is worried about an adjustment of one day that doesn't make sense to perform for at least another millennium?

Isn't science supposed to be as accurate as possible in our 'current' state?

There's no scientific issue here. We know the average year in days to several decimal places.

How that knowledge is used in a civil calendar is an engineering or political question. And no, engineers do not strive to be as accurate as possible. Don't even go there with politicians.

Accuracy always costs something. Extra accuracy, if available, costs more. So, you buy only as much accuracy as you're willing to pay for, usually because the additional accuracy pays for itself in some way. There are not a lot of ways in which having a solstice on every March 21, instead of sometimes on the 20th and sometimes on the 22nd, makes anybody richer.

And, when evaluating competing proposals, it's not just average performance, but also things like what is the most you are ever off by. We have a calendar that is almost always within a day or so of being accurate, over almost all intervals of human concern. The Jewish calendar, a lunar example you discussed? Usually several days off, even over intervals of only about three years.

The key Gregorian insight was that in a "two type of year" system, it is the size of the adjustment that drives both average and worst-case performance. Any calendar based on one-day adjustments could do as well as the Gregorian has done. Any calendar based on whole-month adjustments will perform as well as the Jewish calendar has done.

reply to post by eight bits


The whole reason the Julian calendar was even replaced by the Gregorian calendar is because of accuracy. The Gregorian was more accurate than the Julian and so the Gregorian should be replaced by this type of system which is also more accurate.

edit to add: It was the pope who initiated the institution of the Gregorian calendar. How many times do you really want to follow suit with what the RCC says?

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]