[Aztlan] No Apocalypse Maya in 2012

[Marcos Villaseñor]

On Jan 13, 2008, at 5:58 AM, vgray ((gotsky)) wrote:

> Dear Marcos and others
>
> It is a fallacy to believe an 85-GMT correlate places the Long  
> Count beginning at Aug 13th -3113 CE, which also coincides with an  
> Aug 13th Izapa vertical sun transit.
>
> The Gregorian calendar is in error by -1.5d over the course of 5125  
> years, and hence the actual vertical sun transit of 3114 BC  
> actually occurs about 2d earlier on Aug 11th within the Gregorian  
> calendar. Leap days days need to be dropped every 3,128y within the  
> Gregorian calendar to keep it accurate which greatly increases  
> overall calendar jitter.

Marcos: Interesting, I had not approached the problem from this  
perspective.  The Gregorian calendar indeed accumulates a difference  
of one day in a little over 3,000 years, that is because the  
Gregorian calendar is based on a tropic year of 356.2425 days. So  
using the proleptic Gregorian calendar with a year value of 365.2425  
days, the same solar sunset happens on 13th august today as in 3114  
BCE. Of course, as you state, in tropic years of 365.2422 days this  
calculation has an error of almost 2 days.

Let see:

A calculation of the LC IRT tropic years of 365.2422 days (1,872,000  
÷ 365.2422 = 5125.366126 ) means that the end of the LC occurs 5125  
years and 134 (133.7) days after its begining date.

A calculation of the LC IRT Gregorian years of 365.2425 days  
(1,872,000 ÷ 355.2425 = 5125.361917 ) means that the end of the LC  
occurs 5125 years and 132 (132.2) days after its begining date.

So we can say the following:

In terms of actual tropic years; If the LC starts on an 11th of  
August it ends on a date 134 days later: on 23 December.

In terms of actual tropic years; If the LC starts on a 13th of August  
it ends on a date 134 days later: on 25 December.

In terms of Gregorian years; If the LC starts on an 11th of August it  
ends on a date 132 days later: on 21 December.

In terms of Gregorian years; If the LC starts on an 13th of August it  
ends on a date 133 days later: on 23 December.

But what we cannot do is mix calendars lest we be misled in our  
calculations. This issue is thus calendrical and not astronomical.

>
> In fact basis the 83-GMT using a sunset beginning for the Long  
> Count, the Izapa vertical sun transit occurs 3.5d past the  
> beginning of the Long Count, and basis the 85-GMT 1.5d past the  
> beginning of the Long Count. Or rounding these some 4d or 2d  
> respectively for the two GMT correlates.

Marcos: I believe you are mixing calendar calculations. You cannot do  
one calculation using actual tropic years and the other one using  
Gregorian years because you skew your results. Unless you are  
prepared to say that the LC started on 9 August 3114 BCE.
>
> There is nothing significant about an Aug 13th beginning within the  
> Gregorian calendar during the year 3114 BC as it applies to either  
> GMT correlate and the Izapa vertical sun transit.

Marcos: Or we haven't discovered anything significant yet.
>
> Much more significant is that basis the 83-GMT a Full Moon and  
> Izapa vertical sun transit coincidence occurs 4d past the start of  
> the Long Count, and using lunar heuristics this is quite easily  
> discoverable prior to the inauguration of the Long Count using the  
> oldest known Long Count date ca. -35 CE at Chiapas de Corzo. For  
> example a 220y interval exhibits near Full Moon & winter solstice  
> coincidences at both extremities of the interval. There are many  
> other such intervals. During -35 CE a near Full Moon and winter  
> solstice coincidence occurred which may be used as an anchor within  
> the Long Count to other such occurrences, including the Full Moon /  
> Izapa vertical sun transit anchor at [0.0.0.0.4].


> Using the technique of relative comparisons between correlates and  
> comparing these to calendric structures, it is possible to  
> eliminate many of the competing correlation constants. For example  
> Bohm fails to accommodate the four Venus Round interval correctly  
> and hence cannot properly correlate the Venus Complex of the  
> Dresden Codex. There is structure embedded there that causes the  
> Bohm to fail. The Vollemaere correlation can be shown to fail also  
> when calendric structures are introduced into the analysis. We are  
> down to only a few correlation candidates and increasingly the 83- 
> GMT is gaining ground over the '85-GMT even in the realm of lunar  
> dates.
>
> I am increasingly confidant the '83-GMT will rule supreme and we  
> are getting close to proving it too.

Marcos: I actually have to say that either GMT correlation or the  
Bohm correlation do not affect my research, as my focus is on the  
precession calculation as it is framed within venus cycles (3206  
sinodic cycles with an error equivalent to Venus' orbital plane  
torquing motion). On a personal level I would prefer the 83-GMT  
correlation also. But as you state here correctly, you are confident,  
(thus not certain) and only the work of all of us will eventually  
lead to a correct answer,  we must accept that we do not yet posses  
that answer and not make categorical statements to the opposite.

Best regards,

Marcos


>
>