Comments for Too bad: Mayan calendar predictions revised, 2012 becomes 2220 at http://www.2adventuretravel.com , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://www.2adventuretravel.com Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:05:47 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.2adventuretravel.com/blogs/too-bad-mayan-calendar-predictions-revised-2012-becomes-2220.html#comment-9 We are all fools. What will you gain with the knowledge of all that. At the end of the day, we are all just a tiny speck in this very vast universe, each of us thinking that we can comprehend everything. - KuRoRo Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:20:54 +0100 http://www.2adventuretravel.com/blogs/too-bad-mayan-calendar-predictions-revised-2012-becomes-2220.html#comment-6 Wooden lintels from doors at Tikal and other organic items that can be assigned to Long Count dates have been carbon dated and these agree with the GMT correlation to within the limits of the accuracy of the dating process, a few years. This confirms the GMT correlation and casts grave doubt on correlations that are not close to the GMT. In addition, one of the correlated dates that is used to derive the GMT is the conquest of the Aztec empire. This occurred on August 13th, 1521. The Tzok'in was one snake. A correlation could not be correct unless it differs from the GMT by a multiple of 260 days. This is not true of the correlation of 660,208 days proposed by Fuls, et. al. The date of the conquest would fall on 9 Ajaw. Many hierophanies have been proposed by attempting to use astronomy programs but the methods used by ancient astronomers were not accurate enough to use their data to get dates that accurately record astronomical phenomena to test these hypotheses. A very large number of correlation constants has been proposed by many authors but there is very little doubt that the correct one is the GMT. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete More criticism of Fuls, et. al.: Fuls' chart at: http://www.archaeoastronomie.de/mayaeng/corrtabl.htm has a glaring error. It uses 584,285 as the GMT correlation. THIS IS NOT THE GMT CORRELATION. The GMT correlation is 584,283 days. If fuls didn't know the GMT correlation and analyze it then his work is useless in selecting a better constant then the GMT. Fuls' note on Moon age says "The Moon age was counted by the Maya as given on various inscriptions (using glyph D and/or E). Ethnohistorical sources and the analysis of the Eclipse Table working for Solar eclipses at New Moon leads to assumption, that the Moon age count started at New Moon or one day later at the first visibility of the Moon." Using the wrong correlation constant and this methodology, Fuls finds that the (not really the) "GMT" correlation doesn't agree well with classical inscriptions. Thanks to Copernicus we know that the Earth orbits the Sun and the Moon orbits the Earth. For this reason modern astronomers (including Fuls) refer to the conjunction of the Sun and Moon (the time when the Sun and Moon have the same right ascension) as the New Moon. This is wrong. The New Moon is the first evening when one can look to the west after sunset and see the thin crescent Moon. Even today it can be difficult to predict this and it's important because for example the Feast of Ramadan starts on the New Moon. Given our modern ability to know exactly where to look, when the crescent Moon is favorably located, from an excellent site, on rare occasions observers can see and photograph the crescent Moon less than one day after conjunction. Generally, most observers won't see the New Moon until the first evening when the lunar phase day is at least 1.5. If one bases his lunar calculations on the rule that the New Moon is the first day when the lunar phase day is at least 1.5 at six in the evening in time zone -6 (the time zone of the Maya area), the GMT correlation agrees very well with classic inscriptions, for example: An inscription at the Temple of the Sun at Palenque records that on Long Count 9.16.4.10.8 there were 26 lunar days completed in a 30 day lunation. If Fuls didn't know the correct definition of the New Moon, his analysis is worthless. A lot of correlations between the Calendar Round and Julian calendar are known from post-classic sources. A Tzolk'in is known for the fall of Tenochtitlan. A number of modern groups in the Guatemalan highlands have been found to be keeping the Tzolk'in to this day. All of these are consistent with each other and with the GMT correlation. Any proposed correlation that does not differ from the GMT correlation by a multiple of 260 days is at odds with the historical record. Fuls is a Fool and so are U - Billy Bob Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:03:20 +0100 http://www.2adventuretravel.com/blogs/too-bad-mayan-calendar-predictions-revised-2012-becomes-2220.html#comment-5 That's a shame, I was planning a major 'lets end the world with a big bang!' party. - Moley Frey Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:16:59 +0100