Hey, is this how this works? I am not confident in my logic

Thread replies: 4
Thread images: 1

Anonymous
2016-06-23 07:09:08 Post No. 145173
[Report] Image search: [Google]

File: risk.jpg (188 KB, 500x353) Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2016-06-23 07:09:08 Post No. 145173 [Report]

Hey, is this how this works?

I am not confident in my logic for some reason despite this being very simple and not explicitly finding anything wrong with it myself.

So, technically, would someone advance in age one day earlier than their birthday for every leap year they've lived through?

So like, someone born on, say, March 14, 2000 (to make this easy) would technically have turned sixteen on March 10, 2016, because they've had four extra days total through the four leap years they've experienced, and thus, they will be able to say, on March 10th rather than their real birthday, that they were born sixteen common years ago?

This sounds like there is just a massive flaw. I dunno, I just feel like I would have thought of this or at least heard of this idea in passing before if it was logically sound, right?

Sorry if this is entirely incoherent. Thanks in advance.

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-23 07:11:58 Post No.145175
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-23 07:11:58 Post No.145175 [Report]

I know a lot of people who have worried about days like these while years go by unnoticed.

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-23 07:36:44 Post No.145177
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-23 07:36:44 Post No.145177 [Report]

The four extra days they've had are actually because it takes earth more than 365 days to orbit the sun, by about one fourth of a day. So when a leap year happens, our time actually gets back in line from being 24 hours behind.

Like so, a person who wanted to track their birthday exactly would have it happen about six hours later every year, until the leap year comes and pushes it back to the original time.

Interestingly enough, the extra time at the end of the year is not exactly one fourth of a day, so a leap year will be excluded three times for every four hundred years, as well.

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-23 18:00:31 Post No.145388
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-23 18:00:31 Post No.145388 [Report]

>>145177
So I think that the logic behind it was correct, but because of all this stuff here it's not *actually* correct?

That's very interesting though, I didn't know this, thanks!