Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Gravity/ reply to Pam Pincha
Message-ID: <2151@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 17:37:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.2151
Posted: Wed Sep 11 17:37:04 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 20:21:10 EDT
References: <389@imsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 80
Summary: 

In article <389@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:

>>Point 3 - No ancient calendar having more than 360 days. Please!
>>Look up the Olmec calendar(which later became the Mayan calendar)
>>for accurate calendars. They not only had 365 days they had
>>compensations for all leap year contingencies.Their calendar
>>rivals ours (and is in some ways better)for accuracy! What are
>>you trying to prove with that statement?
>
>    This one is actually very simple.  Calendars designed after the last
>global catastrophy tend to be 365 days, those designed before it were
>360.  There was an intermediate period when most antique nations had a
>360 day calendar with five non-days or festival days at the end of each
>year.

Did Velikovsky actually mention this "intermediate period"?  Or did you
invent it from something I said in a previous posting and are using
it to justify Velikovsky?  If so, you have misquoted it, taken it out 
of context, and forgotten to attribute it.  Sounds like something 
Velikovsky would do.

I said that many ancient calendars had 360 days plus 5 "specials".  
Nowhere did I give examples or comparative dates.  Without those
details you cannot establish that these cultures existed only AFTER
cultures that REALLY had 360 days in their "physical year" (eg: 
Jan 1 was REALLY the day that followed Dec. 31st). Without establishing
that, you cannot use the "special" day item to justify Velikovsky.

Has it ever occured to you that these special days existed in the
"physical years" of all ancient cultures and that Velikovsky neglected 
(by poor scholarship, or intent) to mention these "special" days?  

Or that in some of the cultures the "special" days were so obvious to 
the intended readers that they didn't need to mention them?  Eg: nowadays, 
people say that a year has 365 days often without mentioning leap-years.  
Some future Velikovsky working with such information would then take 
that to mean that there weren't ANY leap-years in our times and thus 
the earth was orbitting the sun faster (or the earth was rotating
slower).  Goes to prove that you shouldn't believe EVERYTHING you read 
(especially after it's been translated umpteen-kazillion times by priests 
and other special-interest groups).

OR, that the "special" days were so "holy" that they were forbidden to 
mention them?  

OR, by God's decree: 
	months have 30 days
	years have 12 months
	anybody who says God makes arithmetic mistakes gets burned
	at the stake?

If I'm wrong about you misquoting me and Velikovsky DID mention 
this "intermediate" phase I apologize.  However, even if he did
mention it there is no reason to assume that the "intermediate" 
phase was anything more than an "intermediate" phase between the time 
it was forbidden to mention these "special" days, and the time they 
were officially placed into calendars.

Calendars are a human invention.  There is no reason to assume that
a calendar corresponds to a physical year.  Ancient culture's
priests were easily able to fudge these things ("last week
didn't really happen.  If you say it did, we'll cut your heart
out") without running into a National Bureau of Standards.  
They WERE the National Bureau of Standards!  New standards were 
heresy - lots of people were burned at the stake for proposing 
what we now know to be TRUE.

Come on now.  If we were to believe implicitly in what ancient
cultures said, we'd have to assume that BEFORE Copernicus et. al.
came along, that the universe was built out of crystal spheres,
and that God reimplemented the universe AFTER Copernicus et. al.
Sheesh!

I notice that there was no response to my proof that Venus and/or
any other planet could significantly reduce gravity on the earth.
Care to comment?
-- 
Chris Lewis,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321