I have also examined the relationship between the Mayan calendar and seismic activity, and links to what I found are at http://www.treurniet.ca/MayanCal/. I discovered that lower mantle earthquake activity varies with what Calleman calls the Days and Nights of the Galactic Underworld – the time period since 1999. Calleman describes a relationship between the tzolkin and the tun-based system of underworlds, so your investigation of the relation between the tzolkin and seismic activity is of interest to me. Our respective observations might reflect the same underlying process.

How do the recent earthquakes in Haita, Chile and Argentina match up with the Hyper Day Windows? I studied some of the earth sciences and meteorolgy at Indiana State University and the University of Illinois. Needless to say, what you have written interests me, but I need to dig a bit deep and ask a lot of questions to get a firm grasp of all of this. What I do know is that plate tectonics, earthquakes and volcanoes have been as cyclic as anything else on this planet, but mapping the cycles has alway sbeen a challenge. I also know that the earth will be crossing the hemisphereic line in the galaxy on December 21, 2012 which will be accompanied by an unusual planetary alignment in our own solar system. Could teh gravitational pulls of the other planets and moons play a role, big or small, in these earthqauke cycles?

The Chile and Afghanistan earthquakes where also on a HD!!

The Chile quake did fall on a Hyper-Day window. Do you have date on the Afghanistan quake?

Haitian and Chilean quakes both fell on Hyper-Day windows. So far 13 out of the last 14 quakes over 7.0M have occurred on Tzolkin Cycle Hyper-Day Windows. I will also soon release a study showing Tzolkin HD concurrence with increased solar activity as well. Yes all sorts of subtle influences can trigger earthquakes. Please see The Unity of the Sun, Earth and Moon for more details

The 2012 alignment has been occurring now for last 30 years and it has to do more with the Sun conjuncting the galactic equator. Figuring out the rhyme and reason to all kinds of cycles has been an exercise in futility for the sciences because they have been unaware of the master cycle…the Tzolkin cycle.

I'm curious to know one thing. In your article, you wrote:

«There can only be one correct Tzolkin count. I refer to the Tzolkin count that I have been tracking and studying for the last 10 years as the Arguellen Account of the Tzolkin (AA).»

So the Argüellian count is the ONLY TRUE COUNT? What about the native count that is STILL used by the Quiché Maya of the Guatemala Highlands, why should it be "false", while José Argüelles modern count is THE ONLY TRUE COUNT? I'm starting to see some sectarian behaviour in this article. Please do NOT confuse your own opinion with "historical facts". Argüelles' count is Argüelles' count. It isn't Mayan, so obviously the only true MAYAN calendar is the one still used by the Maya – that even coincides with the Classical Maya Count. OK?

Thanks, but no thanks…

Historical facts are of no value if they do not pertain to the empiricism demanded by the verification of any natural occurring phenomenon. Arguelles did a great deal of research in Mexico and Central America and his analysis posited a different starting point. He did not show how he arrived at a different starting point relative to the other counts. I do fault him for that but I did not take his word for it. I sought out to either prove or disprove his accounting.

Years of tracking his account of the Tzolkin helped confirm his claims. I am now beginning to offer empirical evidence for it. What do you have to offer besides the claim of "traditional". A claim that half a dozen other camps also claim. Which count is to be deemed as correct among the various ones claiming to be valid because it's traditional?

As long as the current situation persists people following the "Mayan Calendar" maybe rightfully regarded as deluded fools. How can the Tzolkin be regarded as anything more than a belief system when there are competing versions? It can't. But somebody has done their due diligence and that is what I have to offer.

We are talking about an aspect of nature. The Tzolkin either exists despite what anybody thinks or we are all delusional and it does not exist. The argument that one count is correct because it's the "traditional one" is invalid in this context. Therefore whomever can demonstrate independently verifiable confirmation of the Tzolkin sequence can make the claim of being the accurate and proper sequence. Validating one Tzolkin count invalidates the rest. By the way the Tzolkin is no more "Mayan" than the science of electricity is American. The Maya or some other Meso-American group is to be credited with discovering it not owning it. You offered nothing but logical fallacies in your argument.

Dear Rohaan,

Actually I think I never said that Argüelles' count is false or doesn't work. What I said (and you can re-read my comment to confirm this) is that IF you are talking about the *Mayan* calendar, then the only true count obviously is the count that was and continues to be used by the Maya. What logic can there be if you supposedly talk about the "Mayan" calendar and then say that the only true count is the one created by José Argüelles? Is Argüelles' count used by the Maya – or was it EVER? That is what I mean, and I think there isn't anything misleading in my argument. I think it's pretty basic and logical.

Concerning the validity of the Mayan calendar (and, again, when I say "Mayan" I am referring to the Mayan Calendar – not Argüelles' count), well… did you ever study the Traditional Count to say it isn't as effective as Argüelles' count, or even more? I believe you are willingly ignoring and attacking the Traditional Count just because Argüelles' count "works". No one said it didn't work, but in order to say that the Traditional Count doesn't work you should need to first study it, use it, and see which results you can get with it.

Luís
With regards to “Mayan calendar”. Please address the following problems. There are several Maya and Aztec Tzolkin counts in use in which each camp claims validity based on presumed unbroken tradition. Which “traditional Tzolkin sequence” one is the correct accounting?
There maybe 6 or more Tzolkin counts in use today and all but one of them claim to be “traditional”. The one that does not claim to be a traditional count is the Arguellen account(AA). It is only not traditional in the following two ways. The AA sequence differs from any current sequence in use. Meaning that if today is 11- Eb on the Arguellen account others accounts say it is a different day in the sequence. The only other major difference in the Arguellen Tzolkin count are the different names he gave to some of the 20 Archetypes. I believe part of his reasoning for doing so maybe his attempts to universalize the Tzolkin. That is to de-enthnitize it. Newton articulated gravity but gravity is not owned by nor is it to be exclusively associated with the British.
The same applies to the Tzolkin cycle.

As I said in my previous reply. The Tzolkin, if we are to understand it correctly is not a cultural invention, but that rather a naturally occurring cycle in nature discovered by the ancient meso-americans. As a naturally occurring cycle it is then a universal phenomena. As such it is then more properly addressed outside the confines of its traditional/regional nomenclature and in the most universal language possible and that is the language of science.

The second question that must be addressed by anybody claiming the correct count is how does one go about establishing the “correctness” of such a claim. Well, from my vantage point if the cycle is real then there must be empirical ways of demonstrating it manifestation in the world that does not involve the variances of subjective interpretations.
For example. The Moon has its fixed cycle where it goes from new to full and back to new again. It is the same cycle for everybody on earth. When the moon is full it is full for everybody on the planet. The current situation with various camps claiming a different Tzolkin cycle accounting amounts to some saying the moon is full while other say the moon is new all in the same day. Fortunately we can make easy visual observations of the moon to verify just what kind of moon it is. With the Tzolkin the problem is not so easy to determine because we are dealing with a cycle that is so hard to detect that only one culture of the thousands that have lived and are living claim to have detected it. I have come up with ways of detecting and verifying the Tzolkin cycle that are not based on the variances of subjective experience. There can only be one correct Tzolkin cycle just like there is only one moon, year, and precessional cycle. Upon the conclusive and irrefutable validation of a given Tzolkin sequence all other Tzolkin sequences are automatically invalidated. Unlike anybody else I am submitting empirical evidence and sound logical arguments with my claims.

I welcome you to do the same. I am not interested nor is anybody else in subjective claims. Anybody can make subjective claims of any kind but the value of such claims is limited to the person making them. I am talking about a universal phenomena (applicable to everybody like gravity) and I am presenting evidence for it. The report on Tzolkin cycle and earthquake frequency-intensity correlation is but my first submission of empirical evidence for my case. My logical arguments for the existence of the Tzolkin cycle and the physical mechanics by which it operates may be reviewed in the following two reports. The Atomic-Molecular Foundations of a “Social Physics” and Introducing Einstein’s Piper: The Tzolkin Code Unveiled & how every Event is a Synchronicity SOS pt 5

RS

Dear Rohaan,

Why do you talk so much about "science" and then apply the name "MAYAN" to a Tzolkin count that never was and still isn't used by the Maya? Is that a scientific method? And if you're trying to find a convincing Tzolkin count and empirically prove that it "works", why didn't you even approve my previous message, which contained some very good observations made with the Mayan Calendar? And why did you erase some parts of my second message in this topic, in order to hide the same discoveries with the Mayan Calendar? See how your sectarian behaviour is influencing your supposedly "scientific" approach to the Mayan Calendar? How can you expect to have a useful discussion with someone when you're acting like that? That's being disrespectful. You believe you have the Truth and you deny all other possibilities.

Concerning the True Count of the Mayan Calendar, I'm sorry to tell you but it isn't a subjective invention. According to Spanish chronicles of the Conquest, August 13 1521 (julian) was the day 1-Serpent in the Aztec Calendar. Using the GMT (584283) correlation for the Mayan Calendar, that was also the same day in the Mayan Calendar. And what is even more interesting is that the Tzolkin Count still used by the Quiché Maya of Guatemala *COINCIDES* with both the classical Maya calendar, and the Aztec calendar. So there isn't anything "subjective" in this: the only thing that can happen is that either you are open to the facts and agree to consider this a genuinely mesoamerican calendrical tradition, or you close your eyes to the true Mayan calendar and opt for calling Argüelles' new age pseudo-mayan calendar "the only true MAYAN calendar". In my opinion you are doing the second thing, and that's neither a service for Truth or Honesty.

Oh and by the way, you don't need to approve this message too. Just delete everything and ignore the facts. I won't write anything more in this blog of yours.

Truth!

LG

Luis,
You did not address the two questions I put to you. 1. There are several Maya and Aztec Tzolkin counts in use in which each camp claims validity based on a presumed unbroken tradition. Which “traditional Tzolkin sequence” one is the correct accounting?
2. How does one go about establishing the “correctness” of such claims?

The Tzolkin cycle it self is not in question. What is in question is that there are several Tzolkin sequences in use and they do not synchronize. Either they are all wrong or one is correct and the rest are wrong.

The reason I edited one comment and did not approve the other has to do with your arbitrary and subjective interpretation of calendrical dates and the events and personages associated with those dates. That kind of information would degrade the nature the report in question and the discussion we are having.

Aside from the two examples you provide there are still a few other counts. What about them and their claims. My stance is not to leave it to claims that appeal to logical fallacies but to provide empirical evidence for my claims. I invite you to do the same if you want to be taken seriously in any rigorous scientific debate. Otherwise be content with having your system of ideas labeled a belief system. i.e. an invention having no validity outside the believers mind.

RS

p.s. Please address the questions and the points made. Irrelevant ramblings discourage me from wanting to engage you further.

And please be more specific and not use the vague and incorrect label of Mayan Calendar we are talking about the 260 day Tzolkin cycle.
The Olmecs predate the Maya civilization and they were using the Long Count and the Tzolkin. It is not yet certain who exactly discovered the Tzolkin cycle.
There is evidence for it that is 3500 year old. We are discussing the validity of the Tzolkin cycle and how one may go about proving its existence and then validate the correct sequence.
I had proposed the term Maya-mesoAmerican Calendrical System (MAC) in previous writings. We are 99.9% certain that its (Tzolkin cycle) discovery was made in Meso-America and Maya are to be given credit for being the culture to develop Meso-American calendrics to its highest degrees.

Rohaan,

I think I never said that the Maya “created” the Tzolkin or even the Long Count, so I don’t understand why you brought that subject to this discussion. That’s not what is being discussed here. It is a fact that the Maya, like the Aztecs, used calendric cycles that were already used by previous civilizations, like the Olmecs. However, it is also a fact that the Maya, like the Aztecs, developed their own calendric systems based on that previous knowledge, so there *was* and *is* a Mayan system, and an Aztec system. As such, I will continue to use the term “Mayan Calendar”, as it is usually done by the scientific community. It isn’t any “incorrect label”. It actually is quite correct and specific about the Maya.

I will then address the points you raise:

1) The are several THEORIES on which is the correct correlation between the Mayan Calendar, the Aztec Calendar, and the Gregorian Calendar. Just for the Mayan Calendar there are dozens of hypothetical correlations, and for the Aztec Calendar there are some other correlations, some of them not necessarily linked to the Mayan Calendar, like the Arturo Meza Gutiérrez correlation. However, Gutiérrez uses a complicated system that is synchronized with the Gregorian calendar, and as such fails to be considered “native” or even “mesoamerican”. After all, the Aztec Calendar is much older than the Gregorian Calendar.

2) Even though there are several theories on how the maya and aztec calendars worked, there is ONE single correlation, the GMT (584283), that ellegantly unites the Maya and the Aztec correlations, and demonstrates us one thing: the fact that the Tzolkin was used in the same way among al lthe mesoamerican peoples. Even if there were significant differences between the maya and aztec calendars (mainly in how the Tzolkin/Tonalpohualli is synchronized with the Haab/Xiuhpohualli, resulting in a different Year Bearer system, and also the cycle of the 9 Lords of the Night, among others), the Mayan Tzolkin was completely synchronized with the Aztec Tonalpohualli. As I wrote before: «According to Spanish chronicles of the Conquest, August 13 1521 (julian) was the day 1-Serpent in the Aztec Calendar. Using the GMT (584283) correlation for the Mayan Calendar, that was also the same day in the Mayan Calendar.» To confirm this GMT theory further, it also agrees with the traditional count of the Cholq’ij that is STILL followed by the Guatemalan Quiché Maya.

So it appears to me that this GMT correlation is the correct one. Note that I’m not saying that this is the ONLY correlation that “works”. What I am defending here is that, IMHO, this correlation surely is the one that shows us the correct dates on the Maya and Aztec systems, at least according to the Tzolkin-Tonalpohualli.

Best regards,
Luís Gonçalves

Rohaan,

I don’t understand why you censured Luís. Since I think that your interpretation is also subjective, it would be nice to see Luís’ subjective interpretation also.

In fact, it is true that you can’t say that you are working with the maya or mesoamerican system, but with Arguellian system.

Could you show me any native system where the “portal days” appear just like in Dreamspell?

You talk about scientific debates. I ask you:

Has Arguelles been taken seriously in any rigorous scientific debate? I think you already answered NO, and there are always somebody trying to prove what Arguelles couldn’t until now, of course you are not the first. Censure is bad, since this is always what Arguelles’ followers do when they realize that they can’t compete with other’s argument, you are not the first also. You wouldn’t have a chance to censure Luís on a scientific debate, so why you are talking about scientific debates if it seems that you are not ready for them? You should prove, first of all, that you act different then most of the fanatic Arguelles’ followers that are always trying to hide what much people doesn’t know about Dreamspell and the Maya Calendar..

For example:

What about Tzolkin having two days with the same kin when 29th Feb. comes? This makes one 261-day cycle, every 4 years, or am i wrong? Any basis for calling a 261-day cycle “Tzolkin”? Or, even better, any basis for calling this system “Maya”?

Last questions:

Why the “true count” would be mathematically dependent of gregorian calendar, since this count’s followers say that gregorian calendar is the “wrong” and should be replaced?

Did you know that what most people call “true count” (the one that Luís talks about) is even recognized AND supplied by Guatemala’s government, (you want or not) the maya nation?

I’m glad if you can answer my questons with good basis, so I’ll never bother you saying that you don’t work with the Maya count.

Thanks

Thiago,
I edited Luis’s comments because they are not relevant to the discussion nor the article. His comments are for the most part dating interpretations that places Tzolkin science on the same footing with newspaper horoscope readings.
I am not presenting a subjective view of Maya calendrics. My work is based on my subjective experience of it but I am using empirical methods and sound logical arguments to present my case. Please review my article entitled The Atomic and Molecular foundations of a Social Physics. In that article I relate the numbers of the Tzolkin to every scale of the energy-matter spectrum, that is sub-atomic, atomic, DNA, cellular, organisms, earth, our sun and other stellar bodies. And in the article entitled “Introducing Einstein’s Piper: The Tzolkin Code Unveiled and how every event is a Synchronicity” I relate the Tzolkin to two prominent Physics theories.

I am indeed working with the May-Meso-American Calendrical (MAC) system. I am working the heart of MAC the Tzolkin. Arguelles simply posits a sequence that does not correspond to existing sequences but it contains all of the elements the other sequences have. Neither you nor Luis seem to understand what I am talking about because Luis does not answer the questions I put to him. Therefore I must surmise that he does not understand the nature of what I am saying.

Arguelles is not understood for two reasons. His presentation of Tzolkin science and nomenclature is sorely lacking and he discovered other facets of the Tzolkin not yet articulated by anybody else. The latter reason has thrown the traditionalists for a loop because traditionalists have a fundamentalist/conservative mindset.

As far as I know what I call Hyper-Days(portal days) are not described by traditional models. I am not sure how to say this so that you and Luis may understand. Because all other ways have failed to communicate the most essential understanding. The Tzolkin knowledge is a science based on a subtle but detectable cycle in nature. I will liken it to the science of electricity. Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity but it was Edison who developed the science further. Some Meso-American group discovered the Tzolkin cycle and Arguelles has developed the science further. I too am developing the science further.

Internal events and the Spanish invasion disrupted the cultures of mesoamerica. In disrupting the cultures of meso-america they disrupted their calendrical sequence. Let’s assume that prior to the invasion everybody in Meso-America followed the same sequence. The nature of imperialist cultures is to sow confusion. The heart of Meso-american culture was the Tzolkin. The Spaniards burned all but 4 manuscripts and did what they could to erase the Tzolkin from the peoples minds.

We cannot trust historical records handed down by the invading Spaniards for it was their mission to sow discord and erase meso-american culture. I will also add that the sequence may have been lost in other precolonial disruptions i.e., meso-american wars and collapse of various mesoamerican civilizations. So we are dealing with a situation in which there is confusion sown atop confusion.

So the question I have put to Luis is how does one establish or rediscover and then prove the correct Tzolkin sequence? Arguelles claims to have found the correct sequence and he also presents the Tzolkin in a different light. I did not take his word for it so I have spent the last ten years testing it to see if indeed the Tzolkin sequence he posits matches up to reality. My experiences, my experiments and my research compels me to claim that Arguelles did indeed find the correct Tzolkin sequence.

My study on earthquake and Tzolkin sequence correlations is only the first of many studies that I will release that begin to lay empirical evidence for the Arguellen account of the Maya-Meso-American Tzolkin cycle. Shortly I will release two other studies correlating volcanic and solar activity with the AA Tzolkin cycle. If you understood my argument (earlier reply to Luis) for why there can only be one correct Tzolkin cycle that corresponds with empirical evidence then you will understand why proving one Tzolkin sequence will automatically invalidate all the rest.

The meso-americans did not interject a leap year day. So why should we interject one now? Leap year applies to the Gregorian solar cycle not the Tzolkin cycle.
Therefore the Arguellen account ignores leap year for it has no bearing on the Tzolkin sequence. Leap year is a Gregorian accounting system for their solar calendar not the Tzolkin sequence.

RS

I don't know if this work is yours as well, but someone else has worked on correlating Mayan cycles to earthquake frequencies, seen here
http://treurniet.ca/MayanCal/Report1.htm http://www.treurniet.ca/MayanCal/Report3.htm

oops, I just read the very 1st comment! well I'm glad you two found eachother

Hello Phillip,
I'm sorry I did reply earlier to your comment but something went wrong and it did not post. The study you linked me to maps other another facet of the Mayan Calendar. And the time sample is over the course of a year. Its hard to see just how one could attribute the ebb and flow of earthquakes over a period of years to an arbitrarily set calendar period. I mean on could just as easily say that earthquake activity fluctuates from year to year without having to invoke the Mayan calendar. My studies map the Tzolkin cycle day by day. My claim is that certain Tzolkin days known as hyperdays concur with increases in seismic activity and intensity and that is what the results support. The Treurniet study is general and vague.