this 2012 crap is just hysteria especially the part about the mayan calendar which ends in 2012 the last time a check that civilization was destroyed by the spanish colonists therefore nobody is around to do regular updates
Meltdown! A 2012 solar superstorm could send us back into the dark ages
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
I am perfectly willing to let the Mayans have their doomsday. 
I'll keep plodding along my path to old age, though, thanks.
I'll keep plodding along my path to old age, though, thanks.
Trouble ahead: How the sun storm might look in London
If the sun looks like this well... we're pretty much screwed.
a few years back about 2004 there was a massive solar storm like the one talked about in that paranoid hyped up article and nothing happened the only effect i noticed that AM radios where unable to pick up distant radio stations at nights during that solar storm
The Mayan calendar doesn't end in 2012. It just resets back to zero in the same way a chronometer resets back to 00:00 after hitting 99:99.
At the completion of the great circle of time the planets will all line up with the celestial portal and the true rulers of this planet will decend a heavenly staircase with thier magnificent tails held aloft by trailing acolytes.Thier gleaming white teeth exposed by very wide smiles and peels and squeals of drunken laughter as they hurl enormous empty beer bottles at the scenery below. Downon your knees monkeys. hahahahahaha there had better be some trees left or I expect a bit of bloody retribution.
A cyclic calendar does. The year 2012 is simply the year where all the cycles of the mayan calendar end and start anew. No big deal...
If for some reason we had a calendar where 3 different cycles of 10 days, 75 days, and 350 days overlap, that calendar would reset every 262 500 days...
So again, the mayan calendar does not end in 2012. Time keeps going on and the mayan calendar can very well keep track of it after 2012 according to its own logic.
The events would be variable depending on incomming current, a few more volts to break the plasma sheath and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz:smile:
line up the dots
picture of the day
chronological archive subject archive
Birth horoscope of the cosmos according to Hellenistic astrology, showing a linear conjunction of the seven
‘planets’ spanning across seven constellations of the zodiac. Courtesy Meredith Garstin.
Joining the Dots Part Two: The Dating Scene in the Sky
May 08, 2009
Ancient astronomers from the Hellenistic world to China believed that the cosmos is ravaged by deluges and fires whenever the five naked-eye planets, the moon and the sun ‘meet’ in a linear conjunction. Modern astronomers baulk at this notion of a ‘Great Year’ for essentially two reasons. The first objection, that planetary conjunctions cannot produce any noticeable effects on earth, is challenged when the role of the solar wind and planetary magnetotails is taken on board, as previously discussed in part one. What about the second objection – a chronological discrepancy between traditional dates given for such conjunctions and the modern findings of retro-calculation?
For ancient chroniclers working within the framework of a ‘Great Year’ theory, the most recent turning-point in this cycle functioned as an ‘era base’ for the present historical age. Though most ancient estimates for the present era base are now lost in time, at least one has survived.
In the traditional chronology of Hindūism, the present age is the Kaliyuga, the beginning of which was dated by the famed Indian astronomer, Āryabhaṭa (476-550 CE), to the 17th/18th. February 3102 BCE, when all seven traditional planets were in conjunction in 0º Aries. Intriguingly, this date roughly agrees with two comparable calendar bases in Latin America.
The British Mayanist, Sir Eric Thompson (1898-1975), deduced that the ‘Long Count’ of Mayan astronomy commenced on 11th/12th. August 3114 or 3113 BCE. In 1644, the Spanish historian, Fernando de Montesinos, outlined a Peruvian account of history involving nine eras governed by rulers called ‘Pachacuti’, that must have had its beginning date in 3061 BCE. Though these calendar bases were not demonstrably associated with a linear conjunction of planets, they were almost certainly linked to astronomical movements and are close enough to Āryabhaṭa's estimate to suggest an underlying truth of some sort.
Time and again, modern commentators have pointed out that Āryabhaṭa’s date for the most recent ‘great conjunction’ does not correspond to astronomical reality, as “a mass conjunction did not take place” at that time. Armed with the evidence of retro-calculations, nowadays performed with software programmes, Bartel van der Waerden, Rupert Gleadow, Anthony Aveni, David Pankenier, Bruce Masse and the pair of David Kelley and Eugene Milone all dismissed the traditional date on this ground, suspecting that “the conjunction of 3102 B. C. was not observed, but calculated” – as if the fact of ‘calculation’ is a sufficient explanation for the perceived error – and proposing various alternative dates on which similar mass conjunctions would have occurred.
Despite the best intentions of these archaeoastronomers, none of their solutions are entirely satisfactory. On one hand, it is not clear whether their retro-calculating efforts concentrated exclusively on apparent linear conjunctions, as seems to be the case, or whether actual alignments, including the earth itself, were also considered. On the other hand, the proposed solutions typically do not involve all the traditional seven planets or present them only in a loose grouping, rather than the single, straight line stipulated by the ancient theoreticians of the ‘Great Year’.
To a truly open and curious mind, the refutation of Āryabhaṭa’s date for the latest ‘Great New Year’ on chronological grounds carries very limited weight, for the simple reason that the orbits of the planets during the 3rd millennium BCE and earlier are not known with certainty. Retro-calculations, for all their mathematical genius, provide not a smidgen of proof without a control set of observational data.
The earliest extant records of orbital measurements of the planets date from Hellenistic Mesopotamia, while ephemerides recording the positions and phases of the sun and the moon reach back a few more centuries. For the 2nd millennium BCE, the evidence for planetary orbits boils down to a handful of possible descriptions of eclipses, the interpretation of which is fraught with difficulties of a philological and an astronomical kind. Before that, all evidence for detailed astronomical observations evaporates entirely.
Without any data checks, the mathematical extrapolation of current orbits to the distant past is a futile exercise, not only because it rests on the logical fallacy that the present is the key to the past, but also because Newton’s law of gravity applied to the solar system predicts chaos in the term of a few million years at most. Indeed, the limited set of information conveyed by ancient scientists includes some very credible indications that planetary orbits did shift within the span of human history. For example, the Roman intellectual, Varro († 27 BCE), is on record with the claim that Venus “changed its color, size, form, course, which never happened before nor since”. Needless to say, even the slightest adjustment in Venus’ orbit would nullify any retro-calculations for the relevant period.
To allow that orbital changes, however so subtle, have occurred in the recent past is not necessarily to endorse traditional dates for the time of ‘creation’ or the cosmic New Year. For that, one would need to know how Āryabhaṭa arrived at his date. The nub is the obstacle presented by the prevailing intransigent attitude towards the role of electromagnetic forces in the orbital dynamics governing the solar system.
An electromagnetic theory of the great conjunction cannot only shed light on the traditional link with a world-devouring fire, but actually predicts subtle shifts in planetary orbits as well. In his proposed model of Electrically Modified Newtonian Dynamics (EMOND), electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill has recently argued that, when an electric charge exchange transpires between adjacent planets, orbital adjustment and stabilisation are the inevitable consequences: “If the mass of an inner planet is reduced by charge exchange with the next outer planet, … the orbital radius of the inner planet must decrease proportionally to conserve energy. Similarly, the outer planet must gain mass and its orbit expands to conserve energy.”
An electromagnetic perspective on the workings of the solar system expects orbital adjustments at times of linear conjunction, when plasma tails interact with each other. If that may be granted, the use of retro-calculations to verify traditional dates for the most recent turning of the Great Year is invalidated and a greater reliance can be placed on traditional dates, provided that these did not themselves root in more ancient equivalents of retro-calculation.
Contributed by Rens Van der Sluijs
MYTHOPEDIA - Introducing Plasma Mythology
picture of the day
chronological archive subject archive
Birth horoscope of the cosmos according to Hellenistic astrology, showing a linear conjunction of the seven
‘planets’ spanning across seven constellations of the zodiac. Courtesy Meredith Garstin.
May 08, 2009
Ancient astronomers from the Hellenistic world to China believed that the cosmos is ravaged by deluges and fires whenever the five naked-eye planets, the moon and the sun ‘meet’ in a linear conjunction. Modern astronomers baulk at this notion of a ‘Great Year’ for essentially two reasons. The first objection, that planetary conjunctions cannot produce any noticeable effects on earth, is challenged when the role of the solar wind and planetary magnetotails is taken on board, as previously discussed in part one. What about the second objection – a chronological discrepancy between traditional dates given for such conjunctions and the modern findings of retro-calculation?
For ancient chroniclers working within the framework of a ‘Great Year’ theory, the most recent turning-point in this cycle functioned as an ‘era base’ for the present historical age. Though most ancient estimates for the present era base are now lost in time, at least one has survived.
In the traditional chronology of Hindūism, the present age is the Kaliyuga, the beginning of which was dated by the famed Indian astronomer, Āryabhaṭa (476-550 CE), to the 17th/18th. February 3102 BCE, when all seven traditional planets were in conjunction in 0º Aries. Intriguingly, this date roughly agrees with two comparable calendar bases in Latin America.
The British Mayanist, Sir Eric Thompson (1898-1975), deduced that the ‘Long Count’ of Mayan astronomy commenced on 11th/12th. August 3114 or 3113 BCE. In 1644, the Spanish historian, Fernando de Montesinos, outlined a Peruvian account of history involving nine eras governed by rulers called ‘Pachacuti’, that must have had its beginning date in 3061 BCE. Though these calendar bases were not demonstrably associated with a linear conjunction of planets, they were almost certainly linked to astronomical movements and are close enough to Āryabhaṭa's estimate to suggest an underlying truth of some sort.
Time and again, modern commentators have pointed out that Āryabhaṭa’s date for the most recent ‘great conjunction’ does not correspond to astronomical reality, as “a mass conjunction did not take place” at that time. Armed with the evidence of retro-calculations, nowadays performed with software programmes, Bartel van der Waerden, Rupert Gleadow, Anthony Aveni, David Pankenier, Bruce Masse and the pair of David Kelley and Eugene Milone all dismissed the traditional date on this ground, suspecting that “the conjunction of 3102 B. C. was not observed, but calculated” – as if the fact of ‘calculation’ is a sufficient explanation for the perceived error – and proposing various alternative dates on which similar mass conjunctions would have occurred.
Despite the best intentions of these archaeoastronomers, none of their solutions are entirely satisfactory. On one hand, it is not clear whether their retro-calculating efforts concentrated exclusively on apparent linear conjunctions, as seems to be the case, or whether actual alignments, including the earth itself, were also considered. On the other hand, the proposed solutions typically do not involve all the traditional seven planets or present them only in a loose grouping, rather than the single, straight line stipulated by the ancient theoreticians of the ‘Great Year’.
To a truly open and curious mind, the refutation of Āryabhaṭa’s date for the latest ‘Great New Year’ on chronological grounds carries very limited weight, for the simple reason that the orbits of the planets during the 3rd millennium BCE and earlier are not known with certainty. Retro-calculations, for all their mathematical genius, provide not a smidgen of proof without a control set of observational data.
The earliest extant records of orbital measurements of the planets date from Hellenistic Mesopotamia, while ephemerides recording the positions and phases of the sun and the moon reach back a few more centuries. For the 2nd millennium BCE, the evidence for planetary orbits boils down to a handful of possible descriptions of eclipses, the interpretation of which is fraught with difficulties of a philological and an astronomical kind. Before that, all evidence for detailed astronomical observations evaporates entirely.
Without any data checks, the mathematical extrapolation of current orbits to the distant past is a futile exercise, not only because it rests on the logical fallacy that the present is the key to the past, but also because Newton’s law of gravity applied to the solar system predicts chaos in the term of a few million years at most. Indeed, the limited set of information conveyed by ancient scientists includes some very credible indications that planetary orbits did shift within the span of human history. For example, the Roman intellectual, Varro († 27 BCE), is on record with the claim that Venus “changed its color, size, form, course, which never happened before nor since”. Needless to say, even the slightest adjustment in Venus’ orbit would nullify any retro-calculations for the relevant period.
To allow that orbital changes, however so subtle, have occurred in the recent past is not necessarily to endorse traditional dates for the time of ‘creation’ or the cosmic New Year. For that, one would need to know how Āryabhaṭa arrived at his date. The nub is the obstacle presented by the prevailing intransigent attitude towards the role of electromagnetic forces in the orbital dynamics governing the solar system.
An electromagnetic theory of the great conjunction cannot only shed light on the traditional link with a world-devouring fire, but actually predicts subtle shifts in planetary orbits as well. In his proposed model of Electrically Modified Newtonian Dynamics (EMOND), electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill has recently argued that, when an electric charge exchange transpires between adjacent planets, orbital adjustment and stabilisation are the inevitable consequences: “If the mass of an inner planet is reduced by charge exchange with the next outer planet, … the orbital radius of the inner planet must decrease proportionally to conserve energy. Similarly, the outer planet must gain mass and its orbit expands to conserve energy.”
An electromagnetic perspective on the workings of the solar system expects orbital adjustments at times of linear conjunction, when plasma tails interact with each other. If that may be granted, the use of retro-calculations to verify traditional dates for the most recent turning of the Great Year is invalidated and a greater reliance can be placed on traditional dates, provided that these did not themselves root in more ancient equivalents of retro-calculation.
Contributed by Rens Van der Sluijs
MYTHOPEDIA - Introducing Plasma Mythology
Maybe the ancients knew more than we expected, consider the zodiac calendar; it counts the time it takes the North Pole to move backward around a complete circle 25,920 years. It is divided into 12 segments of 2160 years. The constellations do not seem to resemble the objects they are named after and may just be a means for us to recognise the age we are leaving or entering.
The passage from one age, or sign, to another may have been marked by some event or commemoration, the constellation Leo rose directly behind the Sphinx in approximately 10,500 B.C., coincidence? The old testament had some 55 references to the ram during the age of Aries. We know, (or at least most of do) that the sign of the fish is often used to identify Christians, we are now in the age of Pisces. The age of Aquarius is now on our doorstep but we don't know what that will bring. Some think that the "pond of belief and assurance in which Pisces swam so comfortably is being drained, its living water being poured out by Aquarius".
The age of Aquarius may not be the new age of directionless freedom as has been foretold in pop culture but maybe an intense search for survival in a changing environment.
Lotsa maybes. It's fun to speculate, though. Personally, I am hoping for less emphasis on commercialism, market speculation, polarisation, and destruction and more on cohesion, cooperation, courtesy, compassion, respect, and the like.
Maybe. lol
Maybe. lol
"Maybe the ancients knew more than we expected," I think that is a very important point Bob, maybe even the most important point that any of us could incorporate.
It brings to mind the old saying that those who do not remember thier history must repeat it or become a victim of the past or that our sin is visited on our children. We are told to discount the ancestors they were simple minded and superstitious fools but that is easily disproved by virtue of our having survived and thrived by thier efforts and thier knowlege. I would quess that now, in our times, that there are more dummies per cubic meter and per capita than at any time in human history.
Those who remember thier past prosper those who have forgotten become slaves.
I'm not quite sure of that, but they certainly do seem to have plenty of influence. The other problem is that only history will tell our descendents who the real dummies were, we have no way to tell for certain who they are beforehand.
??
I don't have to wait till someone writes a history before I can figure out who's a dummie. lol I'm a bit of a dummie when it comes to history, for instance. G W Bush and most of his admin displayed a whack of stupidity about New Orleans, for instance.
I don't think there were more geniuses per capita than now, though.
I don't have to wait till someone writes a history before I can figure out who's a dummie. lol I'm a bit of a dummie when it comes to history, for instance. G W Bush and most of his admin displayed a whack of stupidity about New Orleans, for instance.
I don't think there were more geniuses per capita than now, though.