Why the alternative linking is also a misnomer

In the main article "Why the 27 degree concept is a misnomer?", I have clarified in the second part how the naming convention based on a nakshatra at Poornima is not disturbed due to any 19 years cycle. I received certain feedback on that article and I was told that the concept of naming the months based on a 19 years cycle is used only for social convention i.e. a faulty concept of following two types of Chaitra etc. month while there cannot be such other months astronomically.

As per that social convention, the 19 years cycle leads us to Magha Amavasya at the onset of current kali yuga if we calculate back to 3102 BC. While mathematically and astronomically the chosen kali yuga epoch (February 18, 3102 BC (Julian)) falls in the Chaitra month in the SS model, the back calculations from the present time (i.e. more than 5000 years until 3102 BC) take us to completing two cycles of 2458.6628 years. Since one cycle has a one month offset, we get the Magha month (two months gap in two completed cycles) as per social convention at the start of the ongoing kali yuga.

From where does the faulty social convention concept get the backing?

The people following this another misnomer concept link it to the last verse of the first chapter of Muhurtha Chintamani, where all the tithis and months of Manvaadi (start of a manwantra) and yugaadi (start of a yuga) are mentioned.

I would explain in this supplement how this alternative linking is also a faulty theory.

The particular verse of Muhurtha Chintamani is actually sourced from Narada purana. While Muhurtha Chintamani merely mentions the relevant tithis and months without mentioning which tithi and month is for which yuga or which manwantara, Narada Purana provides the details of each separately.

Let me present here the relevant part of the slokas from Narada purana for start of Dwapar yuga:

"Krishnapanchadashi Maaghe Dwaparadirudirita"

It is clear from the above that Magha Amavasya is the start of Dwapar yuga and not the kali yuga that has been used by some people to justify a Magha month based on a social convention at the onset of the current kaliyuga. They are actually finding a way for their faulty understanding and hence have a misnomer concept in their mind.

Let us now assume that Narada purana made a mistake and mentioned it wrongly for Dwapar instead of Kali yuga. Is the theory of a 19 years cycle valid? No, still not. Let me explain:

Dwapar yuga started 864000 years earlier to Kali yuga as per the Surya Siddhanta model. Applying the 19 years cycle difference, we get:

864000/2458.6628 = 351.4105 cycles
Dividing it by 12, we get the remainder as 3.4105 months.

If we go back 3.41 months from Magha amavasya, we get Karthika Krishna Trittiya. This is not mentioned as any yugaadi tithi neither in Muhurtha Chintamani nor in the original Narada purana quotes.

If we go back further to start of Treta yuga (1296000 years earlier to Dwapar) assuming further that there is some error in mentioning tithis in the texts (which is actually not the right thing to do), we get:

1296000/2458.6628 = 527.1157 cycles
Dividing it by 12, we get the remainder as 11.1157 months.

Going back 11.1157 months from Karthika Krishna Trittiya, we get Aashwin Poornima.

Again, Aashwin poornima do not appear as any yugaadi month and tithi in any of the mentioned texts. We can even go back to the start of Krta yuga but it is of no use since the system does not lead us to the desired months and tithis.

In a nutshell, linking the naming of months to the 19 years cycle as a social convention to explain the various manvaadi and yugaadi tithi is also a misnomer concept.