2012? False.We are actually living in the year 2000

reply to post by diamondsmith


You obviously didn't understand what I meant by taking into account the basic Zoaraster, which further proves that your calculations are wrong.

reply to post by nineix


I have to interject that while quite exhaustive in your analysis, you have in fact excluded the deductions stemming directly from trivium dynamics which appear to quantify the time-source construct to a T. It's like calling it an elliptical year, rather than leap year.

But ultimately we're on the same freaking page, clearly wrong.

Originally posted by nineix
reply to post by diamondsmith

 

You obviously didn't understand what I meant by taking into account the basic Zoaraster, which further proves that your calculations are wrong.

Why don't you enlighten us,but I bet you cannot.

reply to post by diamondsmith


No, the calulations of Alexander are entirely relevant when aligned with the supernova event. It's even supported by the Celtic Henge alignments.

Originally posted by nineix
reply to post by diamondsmith

 

No, the calulations of Alexander are entirely relevant when aligned with the supernova event. It's even supported by the Celtic Henge alignments.

Sure...just words from you....

i don't know why so many people are acting so hostile toward the OP just because he used some quote from a "bible", without addressing the article or the math involved.

makes them look pretty insecure/fearful

The mean time between two successive vernal equinoxes is called a tropical year–also known as a solar year–and is about 365.2422 days long.

Using a calendar with 365 days every year would result in a loss of 0.2422 days, or almost six hours per year. After 100 years, this calendar would be more than 24 days ahead of the season (tropical year), which is not desirable or accurate. It is desirable to align the calendar with the seasons and to make any difference as insignificant as possible.

leap years were made in order to have the seasons fall on/near the same dates...otherwise, we WOULD have had the seasons manifest at different times of the year.

DISTORTED MATH:

By adding a leap year approximately every fourth year, the difference between the calendar and the seasons can be reduced significantly, and the calendar will align with the seasons much more accurately.

the "loss of time" subject is what happens when you use REAL MATH instead of DISTORTED MATH.

last leap year was 2008. 2009, 2010, and 2011 all have 365.24 days, not 365. 2012 will also have 365.24 days.
this means that the "leap day" that's added on to "leap years" (2012) is a composite of the three 0.24 that are on the ends of 2009, 2010, and 2011 which we do not recognize IN the years 2009,10, & 11.

this failure to recognize real, existent time until a leap year is preposterous. this is where the "loss of 6 hours per year" comes in.

this means annual cycles (like the seasons) would change DATES every year (or few years). DATES ARE NOT IMPORTANT, THEY ARE ONLY (FALSE) REFERENCE POINTS TO THE YEARS IN PAST AND FUTURE.

for instance: changing the date of winter solstice or summer equinox should not be very important...we could just say winter solstice falls on december 20th, or december 19th next year, or december 18th the year after that.
what is important is that the REAL astronomical year is 365.24.,

Gregorian calender is ignorant of real astronomy.

reply to post by diamondsmith


I already have enlightened you, but, for some, the truth is no easy to come by.

I have given you all you need to know and if you choose to close your eyes to the truth, then, I am not a physician to cure your blindness. You must heal yourself.

reply to post by nineix

I already have enlightened you

Yes sure I saw your non existing calculations!!

Lol you guys still at it 6 pages later? This ignorant claim was debunked back on page 1 by me with MATH. seems you guys must have missed that post. Had to unflag this thread cause this is getting ridiculous =)

The answer was we are off 15 days, nothing more. However, adding this info from wikipedia it seems to be sorted, we are in fact not off at all.

Some exceptions to this rule are required since the duration of a solar year is slightly less than 365.25 days. Years that are evenly divisible by 100 are not leap years, unless they are also evenly divisible by 400, in which case they are leap years.[2][3] For example, 1600 and 2000 were leap years, but 1700, 1800 and 1900 were not. Similarly, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2900 and 3000 will not be leap years, but 2400 and 2800 will be. Therefore, in a duration of two millennia, there will be 485 leap years. By this rule, the average number of days per year will be 365 + 1/4 − 1/100 + 1/400 = 365.2425, which is 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds. 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 correct with respect to the vernal equinox.[4] The vernal equinox year is about 365.242374 days long (and increasing).

reply to post by NeoVain


But what about the passage of the Bible that mentions contraction in the NBA and the film Leatherheads?

Surely, you can't explain that away with mere Wikipedia witchcraft.

Originally posted by diamondsmith
ext text
"
A "Harmonic Tree" is a series of intervals that branch off from one another relative to the harmonic series. It is a structure based on simplicity, requiring only multiplication and division.

A "Harmonic Tree" is created through the process of repeatedly choosing a harmonic interval while feeding back the previous value. Each new interval can be chosen either explicitly, at random or using any other process.

The "destination" refers to the harmonic to which the new frequency is relative. The "relative" is the relative harmonic to which the new destination harmonic is relative. Combined, they create the interval destination/relative. For each branch created, the previous destination harmonic becomes a new relative harmonic. See figure 1.
r = relative harmonic
d = destination harmonic
r1:d1
|
r2:d2
|
r3:d3
|
r4:d4
|
...
|
rn:dn

Figure 1 - Harmonic Tree Diagram
1:2
|
2:3
|
3:4
|
4:5
|
5:6
|
6:7
|
7:8
Figure 2 - Harmonic Tree of the Harmonic Series up to the 8th Harmonic
Mathematically, each new value is derived by multiplying the previous value with an integer 1 or greater (destination) divided by an integer 1 or greater (relative).
x = value
d = destination harmonic
r = relative harmonic
f(xn+1) = f(xn) * d / r
Figure 3 - Basic Harmonic Tree Equation
If you wanted to use the "Harmonic Tree" for getting pitches, assign x a starting value. In this next example, x is assigned 100. The relative and destination harmonics are assigned random harmonic integers between 1 and 5.
f(xn+1) = f(xn) * int(rand(5) + 1) / int(rand(5) + 1)

1:5
|
3:2
|
4:2
|
3:4
|
1:3

f1 = 100
f2 = 100 * 5 / 1 = 500
f3 = 500 * 2 / 3 = 333.333
f4 = 333.333 * 2 / 4 = 166.666
f5 = 166.666 * 4 / 3 = 222.222
f6 = 222.222 * 3 / 1 = 666.6"source(csounds.com...


Now I'm no mathematician, and I can't, and probably even wouldn't, explain it in plain and simple words, but this is... right. And I venture to say, with my limited vision, that we are indeed on a (time?)schedule that needs to be fulfilled in a very precise manner, for the wanted results. Harmonic Tree, for example. You pick fruit, when it's ripe.

Good post, Diamond, thanks.

...Only on ATS.

Only on ATS.

reply to post by NeoVain

This ignorant claim

Of course ignorant claim,thank you, you are a very intelligent person because you proof otherwise.

reply to post by apodictic


I Lol'd

Star for you.

reply to post by diamondsmith


Posted that on your quote...

Now I'm no mathematician, and I can't, and probably even wouldn't, explain it in plain and simple words, but this is... right. And I venture to say, with my limited vision, that we are indeed on a (time?)schedule that needs to be fulfilled in a very precise manner, for the wanted results. Harmonic Tree, for example. You pick fruit, when it's ripe.

Good post, Diamond, thanks.

reply to post by LajanAytik

You pick fruit, when it's ripe.

I am glad that you understand,as you see is a fight,and the first law here is DENY IGNORANCE,and you just did that,thank you.

Originally posted by NeoVain
Lol you guys still at it 6 pages later? This ignorant claim was debunked back on page 1 by me with MATH. seems you guys must have missed that post. Had to unflag this thread cause this is getting ridiculous =)

The answer was we are off 15 days, nothing more. However, adding this info from wikipedia it seems to be sorted, we are in fact not off at all.

Some exceptions to this rule are required since the duration of a solar year is slightly less than 365.25 days. Years that are evenly divisible by 100 are not leap years, unless they are also evenly divisible by 400, in which case they are leap years.[2][3] For example, 1600 and 2000 were leap years, but 1700, 1800 and 1900 were not. Similarly, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2900 and 3000 will not be leap years, but 2400 and 2800 will be. Therefore, in a duration of two millennia, there will be 485 leap years. By this rule, the average number of days per year will be 365 + 1/4 − 1/100 + 1/400 = 365.2425, which is 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds. 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 correct with respect to the vernal equinox.[4] The vernal equinox year is about 365.242374 days long (and increasing).

actually, this quote doesn't prove your point at all, it actually prove's the OPs.

The Gregorian calendar was designed to keep the vernal equinox on or close to March 21, so that the date of Easter

this simply says that the gregorian calender was distorted in order to make the equinox fall on the same "day" EVERY year.

reply to post by diamondsmith


Oh man, do I ever understand! In comparrison to what we think we know, we should know what we really Know!

reply to post by LajanAytik

In comparrison to what we think we know, we should know what we really Know!

Give a little love and you will know.

Originally posted by ColAngus
reply to post by NeoVain

 

But what about the passage of the Bible that mentions contraction in the NBA and the film Leatherheads?

Surely, you can't explain that away with mere Wikipedia witchcraft.

This!
This is the most profound and earth shaking revelation on this entire tread
Yea!!! 'splain those things that Angus talks about, NBA and films and stuff, Diamond whatever your name is
I dare you!