[Xandax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_venom Time is irrelevant. We made it up, you could base it on a hundred different things, and end up with one hundred different results. Whether the one we use is accurate or not, I really couldn't care. I can see where he is coming from and understand that there could be reason for chance, but it's not worth it. We are all comfortable with what we have, why change? At least, that's my opinion, but then again, it wouldn't be my decision .

Time is not irrelevant and we certainly didn't make it up. The universe does revolve, and the earth does revolves around the sun. It isn't something which humanity invented. (Unless Matrix is real or something )
What we did however, was simply define our standard for calculating it in the very same manner as everything else in this world is defined - we mearly set units and lables onto effects and elements already existing.


As for the article, then I have problems taking his results serious, but haven't read many other sources for this concept (and likely wont at the moment, cause I'm supposed to be working), the jist seems to be that he places emphasismes on subjective ancient writings compared to celestial factualities, and I fail to see that the two should/would match to the accuracy that he wants them to - for his theory to work.