Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,587 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,286,560
Pageviews Today: 3,241,024Threads Today: 770Posts Today: 15,144
10:41 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 787869
United States
02/16/2010 06:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
Something to ponder.

The Mayan Long Count begun on 0 day or 0.0.0.0.0 which was August 11th, -3113 (astronomical counting). You can see that in the Maya Long Count to Gregorian conversion link below.

Now some feel the Long Count had not only a 0 day but also a zero year. Between August 11th, -3113 to August 5th, -3112 was that zero year. from 0.0.0.0.0 to 0.0.1.0.0. August 6th, -3112 would be 0.0.1.0.1

[link to www.diagnosis2012.co.uk]

Now perhaps the calendar begun counting at that 1 Year. Not at 0, but at Year 1. Just like how the Gregorian calendar begins at 1 AD. You logically don't count starting at 0, but at 1. So it can be consider this way....

The 3rd millennium begun on Jan. 1st, 2000 if only the Gregorian calendar started at 0, but it doesn't, it begins at 1 AD, which means technically the start of the 3rd millennium began on Jan. 1st, 2001.

Could this line of thinking than apply to the Dec. 21st, 2012 date? This essentially could be like thinking Jan. 1st, 2000 was the start of the new millennium when technically it was Jan. 1st, 2001 because the calendar started at 1.

This means if there was a 0 year in the Long Count, which looks like that was the case, and if the calendar didn't begin counting at 0 but instead of Year 1, then the Maya Long Count calendar technically ends a year later or 1 Tun later (360 days) from Dec. 21st, 2012. That date is Dec. 16th, 2013, which falls on 13 Ahau.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 787869
United States
02/16/2010 06:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
More thoughts on this:

I believe that Dec. 21st, 2012 is correct long count end date, ONLY IF you are counting from zero, but I think this wasn't the case or purpose to start at 0 in the calendar. The 0 was a placeholder. Just void, empty space, just included as a digit but not a counting number.

Thus, the Mayan Long Count year 1 starts at August 5th, -3112 (astro). which is 0.0.1.0.0 (or Year 1). It is day sign 13 Ahau as well. The next day, August 6th, -3112 is 0.0.1.0.1 which is 1 Imix. And 1 Imix means this:

"The Classic Maya believed that an earth monster or primordial Crocodile floated in the ocean of
the Underworld. He carried the Earth on his back, nourishing and protecting all life. Thus, Crocodile supplies humanity with the underlying primal feeling of our connection to nature and Mother Earth.

The glyph itself represents a Waterlily, a symbol of beauty, abundance and growth, and the
possibility of ascension out of the primordial soup of creation.

Out of the void, a spark of fire falls into the primordial ocean of possibilities and creation spirals into life.

With 1 Imix we are starting a new Tzolkin round of 260 days which ends on 13 Ahau. 1 Imix is a
logical place to begin counting the days. The number 1 and Imix both symbolize beginning.
According to Kenneth Johnson in Jaguar Wisdom, “this is an arbitrary point of origin. The rhythm
of the Sacred Calendar is circular; many contemporary Calendar shamans insist that it has neither beginning nor end. Nevertheless, we will follow tradition and use 1 Crocodile as a convenient ‘beginning’.”


[link to www.mayanmajix.com]

So there you see above, "out of void" and symbolizes beginning. So I am thinking that the true calendar starts counting at 1 just like 1 AD in our Gregorian Calendar. This means technically then the true end of completion of the Mayan Long Count is a year later from Dec. 21st, 2012, which is Dec. 16th, 2013 or 1 tun (360 days). Dec. 16th, 2013 is 13 Ahau, and the next day is 1 Imix on Dec. 17th, 2013.

Here is an article discussing whether we count starting at 0 or starting at 1:
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 787869
United States
02/16/2010 06:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
More thoughts on this:

I believe that Dec. 21st, 2012 is correct long count end date, ONLY IF you are counting from zero, but I think this wasn't the case or purpose to start at 0 in the calendar. The 0 was a placeholder. Just void, empty space, just included as a digit but not a counting number.

Thus, the Mayan Long Count year 1 starts at August 5th, -3112 (astro). which is 0.0.1.0.0 (or Year 1). It is day sign 13 Ahau as well. The next day, August 6th, -3112 is 0.0.1.0.1 which is 1 Imix. And 1 Imix means this:

"The Classic Maya believed that an earth monster or primordial Crocodile floated in the ocean of
the Underworld. He carried the Earth on his back, nourishing and protecting all life. Thus, Crocodile supplies humanity with the underlying primal feeling of our connection to nature and Mother Earth.

The glyph itself represents a Waterlily, a symbol of beauty, abundance and growth, and the
possibility of ascension out of the primordial soup of creation.

Out of the void, a spark of fire falls into the primordial ocean of possibilities and creation spirals into life.

With 1 Imix we are starting a new Tzolkin round of 260 days which ends on 13 Ahau. 1 Imix is a
logical place to begin counting the days. The number 1 and Imix both symbolize beginning.
According to Kenneth Johnson in Jaguar Wisdom, “this is an arbitrary point of origin. The rhythm
of the Sacred Calendar is circular; many contemporary Calendar shamans insist that it has neither beginning nor end. Nevertheless, we will follow tradition and use 1 Crocodile as a convenient ‘beginning’.”


[link to www.mayanmajix.com]

So there you see above, "out of void" and symbolizes beginning. So I am thinking that the true calendar starts counting at 1 just like 1 AD in our Gregorian Calendar. This means technically then the true end of completion of the Mayan Long Count is a year later from Dec. 21st, 2012, which is Dec. 16th, 2013 or 1 tun (360 days). Dec. 16th, 2013 is 13 Ahau, and the next day is 1 Imix on Dec. 17th, 2013.

Here is an article discussing whether we count starting at 0 or starting at 1:
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 787869
United States
02/16/2010 06:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
Do we count from 0 or from 1?

[link to kilby.stanford.edu]

Inclusive versus exclusive counting

I suggest to call the naming scheme 1-2-3 "inclusive", and the naming scheme 0-1-2 "exclusive". For suppose that I count 10 apples. When counting the apples inclusively, I point to the first apple and say "one", then I point to the second apple and say "two", etc. If, by doing so, I name the second apple "apple 2", this name indicates that so far 2 apples have been counted, including the one being counted at that very moment. Counting the apples exclusively consists of pointing to the first apple and saying "zero", pointing to the second apple and saying "one", etc. If, by doing so, I name the second apple "apple 1", this name indicates that so far 1 apple has been counted, excluding the one being counted at that very moment.

Note that for ordinal expressions there is no choice in using them inclusively or exclusively. The meaning of such expressions is incorporated in the English language (and in all other languages I know of); they are always used inclusively. There can be no such thing as a 0th apple. If fact, in the previous paragraph I explained exclusive counting by saying `I name the second apple "apple 1"', thereby employing the word "second" inclusively.

Now, suppose that one is in charge of numbering something. Is inclusive or exclusive numbering preferable? My answer is that in most cases it doesn't matter, but in the cases in which it does, inclusive counting is preferable.

As an example, suppose you become pope, and chose the name "John". However, one and only one pope before you had the name John already, and you need to distinguish yourself from him. Do you call yourself "John 1" (thereby implying that pope John was in fact John 0), or "John 2" (implying that pope John was in fact John 1)?

In my opinion, the best choice here is to call yourself "John 2". The main reason is that you will be referred to as "the second pope John", or "John the second" for short, regardless of your choice. Naming the second John "John 1" would be confusing. In short, since the ordinal expressions have fixed meanings already, it is best when choosing cardinal expressions for numbering to let them correspond with the ordinal expressions. This entails inclusivity.

Another example: suppose you are counting an unknown number of apples (neatly arranged in a single-file row). If you use inclusive counting, and when pointing to the last apple you say "10", you know that there are 10 apples, so no concluding statement is needed. Also, when counting the seventh apple, you know that there are at least 7 apples, so calling this apple "7" best describes the information gathered so far.

A third reason to use inclusive counting, is to stick with tradition. Except for recent applications in mathematics and computer science, virtually all of humanity uses inclusive counting. Suppose that somebody started counting a large amount of apples, and at the end of his shift, his colleague entered to relieve him, and heard him say "125", while throwing a particular apple in the basket. Then the colleague continues by numbering the next apple "126", and the process ends at "188". At that point the colleague has to guess whether the counting started at 0 or at 1, i.e. whether the total number of apples is 188 or 189. In the absence of further information her best guess would be that the counting started at 1, since almost nobody starts counting at 0.

Thus, if for any reason a default numbering system has to be chosen, inclusive counting (i.e. starting at 1) appears to be preferable over exclusive counting.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 787869
United States
02/16/2010 06:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
Thoughts on this? Are we being duped into thinking that the Mayan Calendar ends on 12/21/12 when it very well could end technically one year or 360 days later on Dec. 16th, 2013?

Just like how we were duped into thinking the beginning of the new millenium was Jan. 1st, 2000 when technically it was Jan. 1st, 2001?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 892804
United States
02/16/2010 07:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
I say we just start over.

Today is Day # 1.

Go.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 886786
United States
02/16/2010 07:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
This is outside of what I know, but, with the amount of people who have taken this apart I would say 2012 is right or we would have heard more about it.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 787869
United States
02/16/2010 07:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
This is outside of what I know, but, with the amount of people who have taken this apart I would say 2012 is right or we would have heard more about it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 886786


You might have heard of Carl Calleman? His Maya Long Count 'end date' is 10-28-2011 because that day falls on 13 Ahau. That was pretty much his main reason for choosing that date because it falls on 13 Ahau.

This is what he said:

Why the Creation Cycles do not end
December 21 2012, but October 28, 2011


"Another equally compelling reason why December 21, 2012 cannot be the true date of completion of creation is that this day is 4 Ahau in the tzolkin count. Since the Long Count consists of exactly 7200 tzolkin rounds then the true end of creation must fall on a day that is 13 Ahau in the tzolkin count so that the tzolkin rounds even out. If we want to find out what is the real date of ending of the creation cycles we must therefore look for a day around the year 2012, which is 13 Ahau in the tzolkin count."

Well guess what? Dec. 16th, 2013 is 13 Ahau as well!
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 787869
United States
02/16/2010 07:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
[link to www.calleman.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 892733
Guatemala
02/16/2010 07:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
Thoughts on this? Are we being duped into thinking that the Mayan Calendar ends on 12/21/12 when it very well could end technically one year or 360 days later on Dec. 16th, 2013?

Just like how we were duped into thinking the beginning of the new millenium was Jan. 1st, 2000 when technically it was Jan. 1st, 2001?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 787869


Wrong just ask the Experts...that live on lake Atitlan Guatemala...

[link to www.prensalibre.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 893021
Canada
02/16/2010 07:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
doubt that very much...the cycle is far too long and projected too far into what would be their future to be off by a year suddenly...the calender predicts far more celestial alignments than just 2012 ( monthly/yearly stuff over what is it? 3,600 plus years?)- it is accurate throughout it's timeline
ac
User ID: 197264
United States
02/16/2010 07:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
Drunvalo Melchizidek mentions, I believe March or April of 2013 as being more interesting.
Celtic (Pictavian)

User ID: 701306
United Kingdom
02/16/2010 07:45 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
I don't know and ain't sure it matters

I tend to think of these as pivotal times, and less about a pivotal date
It is the Thunderbolt that steers the Universe
- Heraclitus
Revelator Stargate
The Stargate Is In Orion

User ID: 1507989
United States
12/22/2012 03:44 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
Something I have dugged up from my previous research looking into the Mayan Calendar (this is my thread from 2 years ago).

About two years ago I thought the true Mayan Calendar end date was Dec. 16th, 2013, and not Dec. 21st, 2012 for a very specific reason as I have detailed on this thread. I can re-expalin it again as to how i came up with this date.

We shall see if tomorrow, December 23rd, has any credibility to the true end date, but Dec. 16th, 2013 to me is the true end date because it ends on Ahau 13.

Last Edited by Revelator Stargate on 12/22/2012 03:46 PM
3ewewg
Revelator Stargate
The Stargate Is In Orion

User ID: 1507989
United States
12/22/2012 03:45 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
Another thread I created regarding this topic.

Thread: It is not 2012- It is 2013
3ewewg
Revelator Stargate
The Stargate Is In Orion

User ID: 1507989
United States
12/22/2012 03:48 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
But my other thread unrelated to the Mayan Calendar, relates to when I think Armageddon will occur and the true Apocalpyse will happen.

That will be anytime between April 4th, 2015 (Blood Red Moon) Passover to May 3rd, 2015 (Second Passover).

Thread: DAY OF THE LORD APRIL 2015 ARMAGEDDON? THE BLOOD RED MOON PASSOVER TIME CODE
3ewewg
Revelator Stargate
The Stargate Is In Orion

User ID: 1507989
United States
12/22/2012 03:54 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
Here is the proof from my research that the true end date of the Mayan calendar is technically about a year off.

Dec 16th, 2013 13.0.1.0.0 (13 Ahau)

Sept. 13th, 1619 12.0.1.0.0 (1 Ahau)

June 10th, 1225 11.0.1.0.0 (2 Ahau)

March 8th, 831 10.0.1.0.0 (3 Ahau)

Dec. 3rd, 436 9.0.1.0.0 (4 Ahau)

Aug. 31st 42 8.0.1.0.0 (5 Ahau)

May 28th, -352 B.C. 7.0.1.0.0 (6 Ahau)

Feb. 23rd -746 B.C. 6.0.1.0.0 (7 Ahau)

Nov. 21st -1141 B.C. 5.0.1.0.0 (8 Ahau)

Aug. 18th -1535 B.C. 4.0.1.0.0 (9 Ahau)

May 16th -1929 B.C. 3.0.1.0.0 (10 Ahau)

Feb. 10th -2323 B.C. 2.0.1.0.0 (11 Ahau)

Nov. 8th -2718 B.C. 1.0.1.0.0 (12 Ahau)

August 5th -3112 B.C. 0.0.1.0.0 (13 Ahau)

Aug. 11th, -3113 B.C. 0.0.0.0.0 (4 Ahau)

And it can thus be considered that Dec. 21st, 2012 is like Jan. 1st, 2000 and that Dec. 16th, 2013 is Jan. 1st. 2001

Popular culture misconception is that New Year 2000 was the start of the 21st century and the millennium but New Year 2001 actually marked the first year of these two distinctions. So essentially now then Dec. 16th, 2013 marks the start of the new beginning and not Dec. 21st, 2012!


ANY QUESTIONS?????

Idol1

Last Edited by Revelator Stargate on 12/22/2012 03:54 PM
3ewewg
Revelator Stargate
The Stargate Is In Orion

User ID: 1507989
United States
12/22/2012 04:04 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
As you can see

Aug. 11th, -3113 B.C. 0.0.0.0.0 (4 Ahau)

to

August 5th -3112 B.C. 0.0.1.0.0 (13 Ahau)

....IS ZERO YEAR!

The real begin date would be August 5th, -3112 and the true end date would be December 16th, 2013, all leading to 13 Ahau.

Why would the calendar start on an Ahau that is 4? Makes no sense!

Last Edited by Revelator Stargate on 12/22/2012 04:06 PM
3ewewg
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22538468
United Kingdom
12/22/2012 04:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
We'll come back to this thread when the 23rd doen't happen as planned.
drevil
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1507989
United States
12/22/2012 06:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
We'll come back to this thread when the 23rd doen't happen as planned.
drevil
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22538468


It's Dec. 16th, 2013. It is so easy to see it. It doesn't take a genuis to figure it out. I am surprised the Mayan calendar researchers never figured this out!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28886687
United States
12/22/2012 09:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
Who knows...maybe our interpretation of the mayan calendar is off by 10 or more years...
Revelator Stargate
The Stargate Is In Orion

User ID: 1507989
United States
12/22/2012 09:04 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
Who knows...maybe our interpretation of the mayan calendar is off by 10 or more years...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28886687


Um no, it is clearly shown in my thread. It is off by a year because stupid logic was used figuring out the end date. They included a year 0 which doesn't make any sense. Thus, it is off by 1 year.

Thread: COMET ISON & THE 13th AHAU CYCLE- The True "End-Time" of the Mayan Calendar (Dec. 16th, 2013)
3ewewg
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 51286241
Germany
12/09/2013 02:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year???
kollegah der boss

News