Just to be clear. The Mayan calendar in no way predicts the end of the world. It is simply the end of the calendar round, something like the new millennium on the calendar we use today.
Even if it did, so what would that mean? Do any of you believe in quetziquatle, the snake-bird? Then why entertain other nonsense?
Topic: 2012 according to the Mayan calendar (Read 5398 times)
Have watched the movie "2012" months ago. We're almost there. Could this really happen?
Why not setup a betting pool? 
I'll bet everything I own that it doesn't happen.
we can always just send kevin up to the 'roid to save us ^_^
What do you mean ?
Who is Kevin ?
we can always just send kevin up to the 'roid to save us ^_^
I don't think nothing will happen.
That's a double negative, which means you think something will happen?
Of course something will happen. Something happens everyday. Most just isn't dramatic or newsworthy.
Well said !
This 2012 disaster thing is too blown out of proportion. I remember in May 2011 some idiots also claiming the world is going to end or on 11/11/11 etc.
Most likely nothing will happen even if we don't get that asteroid deflector going
I don't think nothing will happen.
That's a double negative, which means you think something will happen?
Of course something will happen. Something happens everyday. Most just isn't dramatic or newsworthy.
I don't think nothing will happen.
That's a double negative, which means you think something will happen?
I don't think nothing will happen.
Those are the orbits of the outermost planets like Jupiter, Saturn, etc for scale.
Quote
That was actually really informative. I had never heard of the planet Nibiru tale but it proposed May 2003.
There's also the Nemesis theory (never confirmed, just a theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_%28hypothetical_star%29
Quote
Nemesis is a hypothetical hard-to-detect red dwarf star,[1] white dwarf star[2][dubious – discuss] or brown dwarf,[3] originally postulated in 1984 to be orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 95,000 AU (1.5 light-years),[3] somewhat beyond the Oort cloud, to explain a perceived cycle of mass extinctions in the geological record, which seem to occur more often at intervals of 26 million years.[4][3] As of 2011, over 1300 brown dwarfs have been identified and none of them are inside the Solar System.[5]
There's also Sedna, which is a real confirmed (dwarf) planet with an unusually large eccentric orbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90377_Sedna
Quote
Barring comets and a handful of small Solar System bodies,[f] Sedna has the longest orbital period of any known object in the Solar System, calculated at around 11,400 years.
Crazy shit out there.
The sun looks so cute, is it the sun by the way?
Quote
That was actually really informative. I had never heard of the planet Nibiru tale but it proposed May 2003.
There's also the Nemesis theory (never confirmed, just a theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_%28hypothetical_star%29
Quote
Nemesis is a hypothetical hard-to-detect red dwarf star,[1] white dwarf star[2][dubious – discuss] or brown dwarf,[3] originally postulated in 1984 to be orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 95,000 AU (1.5 light-years),[3] somewhat beyond the Oort cloud, to explain a perceived cycle of mass extinctions in the geological record, which seem to occur more often at intervals of 26 million years.[4][3] As of 2011, over 1300 brown dwarfs have been identified and none of them are inside the Solar System.[5]
There's also Sedna, which is a real confirmed (dwarf) planet with an unusually large eccentric orbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90377_Sedna
Quote
Barring comets and a handful of small Solar System bodies,[f] Sedna has the longest orbital period of any known object in the Solar System, calculated at around 11,400 years.
Crazy shit out there.
Anyway, here's what NASA has to say about 2012
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html
That was actually really informative. I had never heard of the planet Nibiru tale but it proposed May 2003.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html
Quote
That was actually really informative. I had never heard of the planet Nibiru tale but it proposed May 2003.
Anyway, here's what NASA has to say about 2012
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html
Edit:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html
Quote
"There apparently is a great deal of interest in celestial bodies, and their locations and trajectories at the end of the calendar year 2012. Now, I for one love a good book or movie as much as the next guy. But the stuff flying around through cyberspace, TV and the movies is not based on science. There is even a fake NASA news release out there..."
- Don Yeomans, NASA senior research scientist
- Don Yeomans, NASA senior research scientist
Edit:
Quote
Edit 2: I'm also wondering how you rationalized talking about religion in on online forum is the worst thing ever.
Cause my horoscope said so Yes, the end is nigh. The movie is true, and the world as you know it will come to an end in December 2012.
Things you can do now to make the transition:
- Encourage your MPs, Senators and Representatives to put money into Research and the Sciences. We need spaceships and arks urgently.
- Join a religious organisation (if you're not already, if you are, be sure to attend weekly) to prepare your soul for the challenges ahead.
- Be kind to as many people as you can, for in troubling times, the effort you make now to improve the lives of others may save your life then.
- Get to know your community and neighbourhood, as they will go through the same challenges as you.
- Share your knowledge freely and to the world, so that others too may be better prepared. It will be lonely without fellow survivors.
- Remain Calm.
Things you can do now to make the transition:
- Encourage your MPs, Senators and Representatives to put money into Research and the Sciences. We need spaceships and arks urgently.
- Join a religious organisation (if you're not already, if you are, be sure to attend weekly) to prepare your soul for the challenges ahead.
- Be kind to as many people as you can, for in troubling times, the effort you make now to improve the lives of others may save your life then.
- Get to know your community and neighbourhood, as they will go through the same challenges as you.
- Share your knowledge freely and to the world, so that others too may be better prepared. It will be lonely without fellow survivors.
- Remain Calm.
I have to note here, that these recommendations are valid regardless of the accuracy of the predictive power of a single, pre-iron age society.
That's exactly what I was getting at. That's why it's nothing like Astronomy, which is the scientific collection of data about the universe. Astrology is just an interpretation of that data, based largely on the church. That's the reason for my mentioning religion earlier, they are very much alike. Of course that basically makes this into an internet religious debate which is one of the worst things ever to do.
http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeIV/astrology.htm
http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeIV/astrology.htm
Quote
If astrology is a tightrope walk between religion and scientific astronomy, then we already have a first definition. First of all: insofar as it views cosmos, humans, and nature as being reigned over and guided by powers and forces from beyond, astrology is religion. All the events in the cosmos and on earth are linked together by an invisible magic bond. Only on the basis of this mysterious magical connection can astrology assume that the stars have something to do with the course of our lives, with our talents and weaknesses.
In this regard, astrology is related to the nature religions. These also assume that nature is inhabited and governed by magical powers, demons, and gods. Like the nature religions, astrology believes in a multitude of gods; it is polytheistic at its core. Each planet and sign of the zodiac is the expression of a particular god or demon. But astrology is also sometimes accepted by religions which know only one creator-god, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Then the many star-gods become angels and demons which are subordinated to the one God and, as such, understood as "instruments" of God.
In this regard, astrology is related to the nature religions. These also assume that nature is inhabited and governed by magical powers, demons, and gods. Like the nature religions, astrology believes in a multitude of gods; it is polytheistic at its core. Each planet and sign of the zodiac is the expression of a particular god or demon. But astrology is also sometimes accepted by religions which know only one creator-god, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Then the many star-gods become angels and demons which are subordinated to the one God and, as such, understood as "instruments" of God.
I think what you said is irrelevant. It's a matter of what level of interpretation of information, not a matter of interpretation vs. no interpretation. The mere fact that you recognize something as "data" and identify isolated data points as x, y, or z (e.g. by giving them names and/or definitions, categorizing them, etc.) implies that you are already interpreting it as stratified. Recognizing form in the Universe is just at a different level of interpreting information.
And when did I say Astrology is like Astronomy? I disagree with your definition of Astronomy, by the way.
Edit: An analogy is an example of another level of interpretation.
Edit 2: I'm also wondering how you rationalized talking about religion in on online forum is the worst thing ever. Keep in mind you are suggesting that astrology, which is related to the thread subject, is also related to religion.
That's exactly what I was getting at. That's why it's nothing like Astronomy, which is the scientific collection of data about the universe. Astrology is just an interpretation of that data, based largely on the church. That's the reason for my mentioning religion earlier, they are very much alike. Of course that basically makes this into an internet religious debate which is one of the worst things ever to do.
http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeIV/astrology.htm
http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeIV/astrology.htm
Quote
If astrology is a tightrope walk between religion and scientific astronomy, then we already have a first definition. First of all: insofar as it views cosmos, humans, and nature as being reigned over and guided by powers and forces from beyond, astrology is religion. All the events in the cosmos and on earth are linked together by an invisible magic bond. Only on the basis of this mysterious magical connection can astrology assume that the stars have something to do with the course of our lives, with our talents and weaknesses.
In this regard, astrology is related to the nature religions. These also assume that nature is inhabited and governed by magical powers, demons, and gods. Like the nature religions, astrology believes in a multitude of gods; it is polytheistic at its core. Each planet and sign of the zodiac is the expression of a particular god or demon. But astrology is also sometimes accepted by religions which know only one creator-god, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Then the many star-gods become angels and demons which are subordinated to the one God and, as such, understood as "instruments" of God.
In this regard, astrology is related to the nature religions. These also assume that nature is inhabited and governed by magical powers, demons, and gods. Like the nature religions, astrology believes in a multitude of gods; it is polytheistic at its core. Each planet and sign of the zodiac is the expression of a particular god or demon. But astrology is also sometimes accepted by religions which know only one creator-god, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Then the many star-gods become angels and demons which are subordinated to the one God and, as such, understood as "instruments" of God.
Bingo. When you spend enough time looking at the sky, even without a telescope if you aren't presently distracted by all the high tech shit in Western society (live for a few decades in a 3rd world country where there are no city lights clouding the sky), you'll see things a different way. Mayans, Egyptians, and Sumerians got pretty goddamn accurate with their "astrology" if you ask me.
It's like if I were to say I can't see with my ears. Ask a blind person.
It's like if I were to say I can't see with my ears. Ask a blind person.
Please feel free to enlighten us, and try to refrain from analogies like "seeing with your ears". And don't bring older cultures into it, back in that time period astrology and astronomy were linked and almost interchangeable in their usage.
That's not astronomy. It's astrology, astronomy is science and astrology is voodoo.
I'd bet money astrology isn't bogus.
And, I'd bet a lot of it.
Also, how do you plan to win a bet proving astrology isn't bogus when astrology itself is a belief system, and can't really be disproven or proven (like religion).
"Seeing with your ears" was chosen because that's essentially what happens subjectively. I don't care that ears are not eyes. Blind people adapt and they begin to use their ears for spatial recognition. Do you think thoughts are also non-visual experiences? I don't know about you, but I can see my thoughts clearly and vividly, especially if I focus on them. Senses are interconnected. Hold your nose and eat something; I bet it doesn't taste the same. Or, notice how people turn down the music in their car when they are looking for addresses. Why would people do this if hearing didn't influence your vision?
I'm not sure why you brought up religion. I think you were trying to indirectly suggest that religions are based upon no evidence. Even if that was true (check out East Asian religions, they are extremely scientific), not only is faith still the common denominator between science and religion -- or astronomy and astrology -- you can never say "prove" soundly with ANY inductive method of any kind. But, I've had direct knowledge/experience of "God" (for lack of a better word), and I can't prove that to you. It was self-evident. The thing about evidence-based beliefs is this: What one knows he cannot prove, and what one can prove he cannot know.
Really? I ask for how astrology isn't bullshit with no analogies and this is what I get? More explanations of a dumb analogy and some defense of something I didn't even say?
I chose to use an analogy because I can't prove astrology isn't bullshit, nor did I actually claim that it wasn't bullshit. What I said was that I would bet good money that the core principles of astrology are not bullshit, just as I would bet that the core principles of most world religions are not bullshit. You're asking for objective proof that astrology isn't bullshit but, in doing so, you are negating the fact that there can be no objective understanding without subjective interpretations. Moreover, you are negating the fact that it is completely impossible to prove anything with science because it is inductive. In other words, you are asking for something that cannot happen logically.
And, as I am a person from a Westernized culture, my interpretation of astrological alignments will be vastly different than someone who has no telescope, astronomy book, or internet access -- so will yours. This simply means that my/your means of understanding is different than the means by which other cultures have attempted to understand. It does not mean my method is better or that I am smarter.
My point is that just because the modern-day scientific method wasn't necessarily used for astrological predictions, my guess is that it is likely that many of the astrological assumptions made by these cultures are at least fairly accurate because they were committed to, and believed in, their own means of understanding. People/cultures who seek, observe, and learn for themselves will be far more intelligent than those who memorize some dumb equation or scientific finding that some other guy made. Most people either believe in the Big Bang or in Creationism. Why do they believe that? Because they heard it from someone else. When people learn independently, they will see patterns, relationships, and correlations that others will not.
Bingo. When you spend enough time looking at the sky, even without a telescope if you aren't presently distracted by all the high tech shit in Western society (live for a few decades in a 3rd world country where there are no city lights clouding the sky), you'll see things a different way. Mayans, Egyptians, and Sumerians got pretty goddamn accurate with their "astrology" if you ask me.
It's like if I were to say I can't see with my ears. Ask a blind person.
It's like if I were to say I can't see with my ears. Ask a blind person.
Please feel free to enlighten us, and try to refrain from analogies like "seeing with your ears". And don't bring older cultures into it, back in that time period astrology and astronomy were linked and almost interchangeable in their usage.
That's not astronomy. It's astrology, astronomy is science and astrology is voodoo.
I'd bet money astrology isn't bogus.
And, I'd bet a lot of it.
Also, how do you plan to win a bet proving astrology isn't bogus when astrology itself is a belief system, and can't really be disproven or proven (like religion).
"Seeing with your ears" was chosen because that's essentially what happens subjectively. I don't care that ears are not eyes. Blind people adapt and they begin to use their ears for spatial recognition. Do you think thoughts are also non-visual experiences? I don't know about you, but I can see my thoughts clearly and vividly, especially if I focus on them. Senses are interconnected. Hold your nose and eat something; I bet it doesn't taste the same. Or, notice how people turn down the music in their car when they are looking for addresses. Why would people do this if hearing didn't influence your vision?
I'm not sure why you brought up religion. I think you were trying to indirectly suggest that religions are based upon no evidence. Even if that was true (check out East Asian religions, they are extremely scientific), not only is faith still the common denominator between science and religion -- or astronomy and astrology -- you can never say "prove" soundly with ANY inductive method of any kind. But, I've had direct knowledge/experience of "God" (for lack of a better word), and I can't prove that to you. It was self-evident. The thing about evidence-based beliefs is this: What one knows he cannot prove, and what one can prove he cannot know.
Really? I ask for how astrology isn't bullshit with no analogies and this is what I get? More explanations of a dumb analogy and some defense of something I didn't even say?
Jump to: