This May Sound Crazy But...is It Really?
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Phoenix a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 12:16pm |
 Coolness: 81835 | I was thinking to myself the other day about how the inaccuracy of our modern day calender affects certain things, birthdays for example. I just celebrated mine the other day and realized that I've,... we've all been doing it all wrong our entire lives.
Hear me out... The day a person was born obviously never changes however think about what a birthday celebration actually is. 1 year represents 1 full rotation of the earth around the sun (365.25 days...keep the leap year in mind) hence if a person is born on a leap year, one full rotation of the earth means that the actual realtime celebration of their birth shift 6 hours ahead (ie: if you're born at noon-12pm on jan 1st 1980 then you should celebrate your birthtime @ 6pm jan 1st 1981). Now let's go one step further,... what happens in 1982 is that another full planet rotation means you should celebrate your birthday/time at 12am the next day (Jan2 due to the inacurate roman catholic calender). and so forth, 1983 = 6am Jan 2nd, then shifting back 18 hours to noon Jan 1st (due to the added calender date of Feb 29th to compensate for the planetary rotation. I was Born at 8:00 pm, Jan 7th, 1981 (the year after the leap year, and it remains at the same time on the same calender date every 4 years (1985, 1989, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005...) Technically this means I should've celebrated it at 2:00 this year since the calender is going back a full 24 hrs from last years 18 hr time shift ahead. In either case, all it means is that 2 out of every 4 years I should be celebrating my birthday (number of full rotations around the sun) on January 8th. I discussed this with a friend of mine who was born on Feb 29th during a leap year and celebrates is the day b4 for the other 3 of of 4 years in the cycle. We both agreed that it's a perfectly logical explanation & why his age obviously doesnt go up by 1 every 4 years. I'm curious to hear a couple other opinions on this theory/truth. Does this make any sense to anyone? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 12:18pm |
 Coolness: 685735 | Originally posted by ! PHOENIX !...
Does this make any sense to anyone? No. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» lakester a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 12:23pm |
 Coolness: 59825 | You have too much time on your hands which could be used doing something waaaaaay more productive like helping find a cure for cancer or feeding little monkeys. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eltopo a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 12:29pm |
 Coolness: 63055 | i want a little monkey for my birthday |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Phoenix a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 12:31pm |
| Coolness: 81835 | This thread was made with the intention of opening the ignorant eyes of the general population which has neglected to realize what time is really all about,... Someone who understands how and why time is relative would definitely agree that the above is rational...and others like Spooky will remain in denial.
Another example is time zones... If you take a 4 hr flight from Montreal to Vancouver let's say, there may be 4 hr airtime however since the hours shift back by 3 it would mean that if your flight left Montreal at noon EST then you would land at 1pm PST. If a person were to ask "how long was your flight?" you could respond by saying 1 hour without lying, then go into further detail explaining that your physical flight time was 4 hours. Consequently this means that your flight from BC to Quebec would be 7 hours (4 hours airtime + 3 hrs due to time zone shift). Does that explain it better for you? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» lakester a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 1:30pm |
| Coolness: 59825 | I understand exactly what you're saying, however, as you also said, time is relative. And all this is irrelevant.
As I said, there are more important things to worry about in the world. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 1:40pm |
 Coolness: 69120 | it makes sense (sorta)
but whats the point in even thinking about all that? and also your calculations are wrong .. leap years occur every 4 years except when divisible by 100 except when divisible by 400 |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» daFTWin a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:15pm |
 Coolness: 276580 | Originally posted by EL TOPO...
i want a little monkey for my birthday meeee toooo. p.s. I stopped reading it half way.. sorry. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:16pm |
 Coolness: 121585 | jesus.. that's um.. okay.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Phoenix a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:18pm |
| Coolness: 81835 | Originally posted by MOI...
and also your calculations are wrong .. leap years occur every 4 years except when divisible by 100 except when divisible by 400 that last part reads gibberish... I understand the leap yr is every 4 years. This year being a leap year means so was 1980. 1yr= 365.25 days, 0.25 days = 6 hours. and if you're going to acuse my calculations of being wrong than you should at least justify it. Originally posted by ! Phoenix !... > it remains at the same time on the same calender date every 4 years (1985, 1989, 1993, 1997, 2001... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:19pm |
| Coolness: 121585 | i was born in the morning- so none of this should affect anything if i understood right |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» cactain_steef a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:21pm |
 Coolness: 154820 | i think this boy needs a ...
RAVE!!!!! rAVE RAVE RAVE! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» daFTWin a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:24pm |
| Coolness: 276580 | ans I think you need a nap. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Phoenix a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:25pm |
| Coolness: 81835 | Originally posted by LITTLE SARAH...
i was born in the morning- so none of this should affect anything if i understood right Depending on the year you were born it very well could. If you're born prior to 6am on a leap year than no, but otherwise yes you're affected by the time ripple. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eltopo a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:27pm |
| Coolness: 63055 | uh oh looks like its time to go back into the TV |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:32pm |
| Coolness: 121585 | you're a time ripple |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» cactain_steef a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:33pm |
| Coolness: 154820 | a nap would be nice... :) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» daFTWin a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:33pm |
| Coolness: 276580 | I thought so :b |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Phoenix a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:34pm |
| Coolness: 81835 | Originally posted by JAIME LE COQUE...
a nap would be nice... :) Now that's a waste of time. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino a répondu le Fri 9 Jan, 2004 @ 2:35pm |
| Coolness: 69120 | look it all makes perfect sense
yes.. every year your birthtime SHOULD shift 6 hours forward due to the .25 days unaccounted for until the next lead year... and it doesnt read jibberish a lead year is every fourth year unless the year is divisible by one hundred (ie: 1200, 1900, 2100) but it remains a leap year if it is divisible by one hundred and ALSO divisible by four hundred (ie: 1200, 1600, 2000) |
This May Sound Crazy But...is It Really?
[ Haut de la page ] |
Poster Une Réponse |
Vous devez être connecté pour soumettre une réponse.
[ Haut de la page ] |
