Secret 666 Gregorian Calendar Code (hidden 3 leap years)

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Im on a lunch break, so I'll have to re-run the calculations when I have more time to concentrate, however, I dont expect the results to be significantly different.

I noticed that the metonic cycle has an error of 1 day every 219 years. My conclusion was an omission of 2 years and 9.5 days. That harmonizes with the metonic cycle's margin of error.

1974 years/219=9.014 days

This leaves almost exactly 2 years missing.

Like I said, Ill try again, but what do you mean by adding 1 year for every 30 years? I missed that part.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Also, I reckon you know that the lunar cycle doesn't exactly match 19 tropical or sidereal years, the lunar cycle is quite a few days and hours longer than a solar year, you did account for that I suppose? And as always with calendars, add 1 to account for the first year (and similarly delete one year when dealing with AD / BC since there is no year 0). 30AD and 31AD isn't 31 - 30 = 1 year, but years 30AD + 31AD = 1 + 1 = 2 years

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

If you could provide the number of days in the metonic cycle, I can refine down my calculations.

My understanding was 6,939.602.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Sorry, I mixed up the numbers, I said days and hours, I meant hours and minutes when comparing the sidereal year and the metonic cycle of roughly 6940 days. I also mixed with the Saros cycle of 223 synodic months between when the Sun and the Moon returns to more or less the same relative space in the sky along the ecliptic. A Saros is 18 years 11 days og 8 hours. 12 synodic months later and you have a Metonic cycle.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I was playing around with the numbers, and decided it was best to use a lunar average of 354.37 days, a solar average of 365.242 days, and a metonic cycle of 6939.7458333 days. This way we get an average metonic cycle. With these numbers, you will get something close to a 2 year omission with a 9 day margin of error. The 9 day margin of error is to be expected considering that evey 219 years creates an error of one day. The use of the long decimals is necessary for accuracy.

I was trying to calculate a shorter cycle to reduce the radical decimals and to compare calculations, and I discovered that Gregory only omitted one year in 1582. So some where earlier in history, there is another lost year. This changes things.

I have confidence that 2 years have been lost, and that we are in 2016 AD, but somewhere between 30 AD and and 1582, a year is missing. Im open to any ideas that you may have.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Add one year for year 30, and you're fine I suppose.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

My understanding is that you only add one year to BC dates when doing astronomical calculations that span from BC to AD. Thats how Nasa presents their data. My calculations are localized to AD, so that shouldnt be a factor.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

When you measure dates from 1974 to 30 you want to count both year 30 AD and year 1974 AD as well as the years in between.1974 minus 30 puts year 30 AD among the years you delete, hence add a year to include 30 AD. Much like how 1974 is in the 20th century. I do have to admit that I suddenly became slightly intimidated by my level of certainty, so I may be completely taking a dive here. If I am wrong I have been wrong quite some time and I may actually have been indirectly contributing to light the Gregorian blaze here....

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

2004AD-30AD=1974 years, not 1974 AD

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

2004AD-30AD=1974 years, not 1974 AD

Yes, but counting dates between 2004AD and 30AD you want to count both year 2004AD and 30AD, right? That means that you only want to omit the years before 30 AD, or from and including 1AD through 29AD, get it? that gives 2000 - 30 +1 = 1975

ETA: January first 1AD is actually 0.0027 AD - Welcome to the weirdness of calendar math

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

2004AD-30AD=1974 years, not 1974 AD

Yes, but counting dates between 2004AD and 30AD you want to count both year 2004AD and 30AD, right? That means that you only want to omit the years before 30 AD, or from and including 1AD through 29AD, get it? that gives 2000 - 30 +1 = 1975

ETA: January first 1AD is actually 0.0027 AD - Welcome to the weirdness of calendar math

Yes, but that is in consistant with the lunar patterns. The next Vernal new moon is scheduled to occur in 2023. This is 19 years from 2004. You can go further back to 1776 if you want, and the span of time will be divisible by 19, and the data sheet will confirm the lunar phase. I dont see a reason to add a year to the 1974 span of years. That doesnt work for any other metonic patterns. Not unless you are specifically trying to fill in the Gregorian gap, but that requires the assumption that Gregory omitted a year.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Then I suggest you buy any ephemerises you can find (like me) and abide the bloody mess that curls the pages of time. There is a Year lost, and there were, and isolate 'the thing'. When stealth tech came the problem that the sub showed up as a black hole on the Russian screens, so look for black holes. There be dragons....

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

OK. Lets count the years from 2000 to 2014. If you simply delete 2000 from 2014 you get 14 years.

Looks great. But what about the year 2000?

2000+01+02+03+04+05+06+07+08+09+10+11+12+13+2014 = 15 years

or

2014 - 2000 + 1 = 15 years

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

That isnt practical in calendar calculations.

30 AD to 87 AD is 57 years, or 19x3. Both years are Vernal new moons.

30+57=87

Furthuremore, 2016+7=2023. This is accuratle because 9/16/2016+2556 day = 9/16/2023. You can confirm that with a calendar calculator:

www.timeanddate.com...

Remember that we are not counting all of Gregorian 30AD, but only the Vernal equinox and forward. The Paleo-Hebrew calendar starts about 3.5 months later than the Gregorian calendar.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Well, I may be completely wrong, but the thing with calendars is, that they start off at 1 and not 0 like our decimal system does. I'm afraid I'm complicating things too much here, this is all getting terribly confusing. Also since we're talking about quite a span in time, you also have to count in precession and hidden leap years, like how year 2000 was a leapyear eventhough it was a century. Found the below quote interesting:

Leap year ==> en.wikipedia.org...

The Gregorian calendar was designed to keep the vernal equinox on or close to March 21, so that the date of Easter (celebrated on the Sunday after the 14th day of the Moon—i.e. a full moon—that falls on or after March 21) remains close to the vernal equinox.[6] The vernal equinox year is about 365.242374 days long, measured in ephemeris time.

Ephemeris time ==> en.wikipedia.org...

In other words the Gregorian calendar doesn't account for axial precession, so that's nearly a whole month only there. If 21 March 1AD was vernal equinox, vernal equinox 2014 was infact 24th February, not 21st March, but since the Gregorian calendar is made to reflect the tropical year, the calendar follows the seasons and has a fixed date for vernal equinox, rather than accounting for axial precession where vernal equinox moves backwards relative to calendar dates over time with roughly one month per 2000 years. Our seasons are mostly determined by the angles of Earth's axis and not only the planet's place relative to the Sun and so on. When it is summer in Europe we are actually further away from the Sun than in the middle of the winter. You could win a beer on that one. I did once.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

accounting for axial precession where vernal equinox moves backwards relative to calendar dates over time with roughly one month per 2000 years.

How accurate is that statement? According to the data concerning the vernal new moons from 1586 AD to 2004, the drift is only 1.45 days. That would make a drift of 6.27 days/2000 years. Those figures are liberal since the equinoctal year is more consistent with the Gregorian calendar than the metonic cycle is.

Considering Sirius' stationary location, do you really believe our axis precesses enough to cause any significant drift?

Is there any concrete evidence that our axis precesses at the rate that modern science dictates?

The answers to these questions can have profound implications. Ill show you why after you answer them.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Since the Gregorian calendar follows the tropical year, vernal equinox is stationary. So instead of accounting for axial shift which would mean that vernal equinox would come about one day earlier every 70 years or so, or about a whole month roughly every 2000 years. However, instead of accounting for this, the calendar is calibrated since the seasons change accoding to axial orientation, not so much where we are in space relative to the Sun.

Precession of the equinox is often calculated as 72 x 30 = 2160 meaning the Sun/ecliptic moves roughly 1° backwards along the zodiac every 72nd year, and enters a new house (30°) every 2160th year, though these numbers are rough estimates. Like I said, the Gregorian calendar is made to ignore this, and by following the Tropical year we don't notice much, since vernal equinox seems to be stationary at 21st March. But if you are to measure time over big spans in history based on astronomical events, you must account for it somehow.

Sirius seems stationary compared to the equinoxes and solstices which leads me to think that maybe Earth-Sirius is a twin system. Most stars in the sky are infact twin systems, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone really.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Since my last post, I counted every 133 years (19x7) to try and find the other missing years, and now Im back to 1582. All AD dates before 1582 are listed according to the Julian calendar, yet the vernal new moon didnt drift any further than 3/17. This indicates that nasa accounted for and corrected the Julian error. When it comes to the placement of the Vernal Equinox on the data sheet, the Gregorian and Julian calendars reflect almost the same data.

As I went through history, 133 years at a time, I noticed a very gradual shift, but that shift doesnt explain why all dates after 1582 seem to be staggered by 2 years. Its not a matter of metonic or equinoctal drift, because as stated, all years on the listing seem to have been intercalated.

My only conclusion is that Gregory must have used his 10 omission to cover a larger two year omission.

Ill have to check the BC metonic cycles, and see how correct they are, but by process of elimination using the Mayan calendar, Paleo-hebrew meter, and the metonic cycle, all indications are that history has been tampered with.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

There is also an interesting correlation between the number 19 and the Koran.

==> en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

There is also an interesting correlation between the number 19 and the Koran.

==> en.wikipedia.org...

Ive heard about that. It has something to do with letter counts.

The numbers 57, 56, 77, and 133 all appear in the Hebrew and Greek meter, but never 19 by its self. Isaiah uses 56+77 to make 133 years. The metonic cycle is 8+11, so if you multiply that by 7, you get 56+77. Then there is 57, which is used to express the 7 day Passover week followed by the Feast of Weeks and Pentacost:7+50. It is in the same way used to express Jesus' original schedule; 40 years on Earth followed by His death/resurrection in 37 AD, then 50 years of evangelism by the Jews + 7 years of tribulation, then Jesus was supposed to return in 94 AD. Jesus was killed 7 years before He could reach the age of 40, so instead of returning in 94 AD, the Book of Revelation was written to explain that His return would be re-scheduled. Of course, 57 is also 3x19. All of this is hidden in the meter, thats why the Church forgot about it.