2012?

[skeptic of oz]

I believe the excitement is due to it marking a changeover in the Mayan calendar. I expect it to cause about as much trouble as the end of our calendar does every December 31st. But for those end of the world types they found their next Y2K.

Funny you should mention that because that's when nonsense and hysteria had reached rock bottom. When my local TV guide actually had a NB on top of January 1 advising of changes to programming in the event of Y2K side effects I knew things ahd inded gone downhill...

2012...the next cause celebre of the New Agers. Don't these people give consideration to the fact that as advanced for their time as the Mayans may have been, at the end of the day they were still primitive peoples who did not have the same level of knowledge of the world (and the universe) that we do.

 

[Ladewig]

Is it just me or does anyone else immediately think of the Rush album 2112 when they see the number 2012. A moment of joy then bitter disappointment.

Of course, written in European format, the date becomes 12/21/12.

..............................

.
In the ancient Maya calendar the 'day' in question corresponded to 23 December 2012 AD, and apparently agrees with the end date of the current precessional motion.

I think you mean 21 Dec 2012.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

My pretty calendar:

http://www.pagetworld.co.uk/mayan.php

 

[moon1969]

"END-OF-THE-WORLD PROPHECIES:
15 FAILED PREDICTIONS OF THE
END OF THE WORLD DURING 2006"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl1.htm

 

[Jon_Stripe]

Like sts60, says, the Mayans are still around. They undoubtedly think it's a hoot that all these crazy Westerners think they're such a wise and spiritual people - especially when those Westerners are rushing to spend their money on anything "Mayan".
There are lots of other ancient and spiritually knowledgeable races still around as well - Chinese and Native Americans (very popular as founts of ancient wisdom amongst New Agers and spiritualists on the 60s & 70s), Australian aboriginals (still regarded as highly spiritual amongst a certain type of US NuAger who has never been to Australia), all those Druid/Celt dudes (we're supposed to have worshipped pumpkins in pre-Roman times, if you believe some US NuAge writers).
Once 2012 has passed and the world has clearly not not changed, the Armageddonists and NuAgers will latch onto some other "ancient" race to exploit.

I'm not looking to exploit the Maya. I just think there's more to the 2012 thing then people want to think. Modern people are very aragent in that they think anything ancient is 'stupid' (I'm not pointing to you, simply modern people in general). I am not one, however, who thinks the world is GOING TO END IN A HORRIFIC, CATACLISMIC AND HELLISH ORGASM OF FIRE!!!, but instead that something will accure. I don't know what although I havent really spent time pondering it. Why dwell and worry about something you can't do anything about?

 

[Ladewig]

I'm not looking to exploit the Maya. I just think there's more to the 2012 thing then people want to think. Modern people are very aragent in that they think anything ancient is 'stupid' (I'm not pointing to you, simply modern people in general).

I don't see modern people as viewing the pyramids, the Coliseum, and the Parthenon as stupid. Can you give some examples to support your hypothesis?

I, like many other modern people, believe that an ancient people making correct predictions 8000 years into the future is rather hard to believe.

I don't know what although I havent really spent time pondering it. Why dwell and worry about something you can't do anything about?

If you haven't pondered it, then how do you know you can't do something about it? Or at least mitigate the effects of an inevitable event.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
The likely hysteria aside, for the moment, the ancient Maya calendar calculates an end date as follows:
"The day will be 4 Ahau 3 Kankin, and it will be ruled by the Sun God, the ninth Lord of the Night. The moon will be eight days old, and it will be the third lunation in a series of six..."
In the ancient Maya calendar the 'day' in question corresponded to 23 December 2012 AD, and apparently agrees with the end date of the current precessional motion.

You keep saying "end date" but it is not an end date. The amount of precession in 2011, 2012, and 2013 will be the same. The precession will continue well beyond 2012. From an astrometrical point of view, nothing is ending.

Is twice a big number?
It seems the process of approaching and passing through the greatest angle of diversion from the ecliptic of the precessional wobble places great incidental stresses on the planet, as discussed by Hapgood and others.
The precession will of course endlessly repeat, and the ancients seemed to know this, with 'end' meaning the end of a precessional wobble.

 

[sts60]

maatorc: It seems the process of stopping and reversing the direction of the precessional wobble places great stresses on the planet, as discussed by Hapgood and others.

The Earth's precession doesn't "stop and reverse". Start a top spinning and watch it precess. The Earth is just a big spinning top. Really big. Without the friction of a table slowing it down.

Jon_Stripe: I'm not looking to exploit the Maya. I just think there's more to the 2012 thing then people want to think. Modern people are very aragent in that they think anything ancient is 'stupid' (I'm not pointing to you, simply modern people in general). I am not one, however, who thinks the world is GOING TO END IN A HORRIFIC, CATACLISMIC AND HELLISH ORGASM OF FIRE!!!, but instead that something will accure. I don't know what although I havent really spent time pondering it. Why dwell and worry about something you can't do anything about?

As an (amateur) astronomer with some interest in archaeoastronomy, I certainly don't think "anything ancient is stupid", especially the notable astronomical achievements of earlier peoples. But there's no physical reason behind any of these "something will happen" claims, and the specific claims all seem to be today's people putting their own spin on things.

 

[maatorc]

maatorc: It seems the process of stopping and reversing the direction of the precessional wobble places great stresses on the planet, as discussed by Hapgood and others.......
The Earth's precession doesn't "stop and reverse". Start a top spinning and watch it precess. The Earth is just a big spinning top. Really big. Without the friction of a table slowing it down......

The point is taken.
I have edited the post.

 

[Ladewig]

Is twice a big number?
It seems the process of approaching and passing through the greatest angle of diversion from the ecliptic of the precessional wobble places great incidental stresses on the planet, as discussed by Hapgood and others.

I am very confused. Can you either go into greater detail about that claim or provide a website that describes it more thoroughly?

 

[Jon_Stripe]

I don't see modern people as viewing the pyramids, the Coliseum, and the Parthenon as stupid. Can you give some examples to support your hypothesis?

I, like many other modern people, believe that an ancient people making correct predictions 8000 years into the future is rather hard to believe.



If you haven't pondered it, then how do you know you can't do something about it? Or at least mitigate the effects of an inevitable event.

Example: My Great Grandfather, rest in peace, was an old fashioned man. He disliked the Native Americans because he thought they were "stupid".

I hear people regularly, when the topic is being discussed, say "The ______ were retards... Why would someone sacrifice themselves for bird-people gods?!"


"If you haven't pondered it..."

Good question.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Is twice a big number?
It seems the process of approaching and passing through the greatest angle of diversion from the ecliptic of the precessional wobble places great incidental stresses on the planet, as discussed by Hapgood and others.

I am very confused. Can you either go into greater detail about that claim or provide a website that describes it more thoroughly?

I agree it is a tricky subject.
<http://www.grahamhancock.com/library/fotg/default.htm> may interest you.
Be careful about taking a presumption with you about an author or publisher.
The only thing that matters is: Is it true or false?

 

[Ladewig]

I agree it is a tricky subject.
<http://www.grahamhancock.com/library/fotg/default.htm> may interest you.
Be careful about taking a presumption with you about an author or publisher.
The only thing that matters is: Is it true or false?

My bad. I was not clear enough. I am looking for a citation or explanation of precisely what you mean by "the greatest angle of diversion from the ecliptic of the precessional" specifically, I am interested in your definition of all the terms used.

The link you provided is of no help - it is simply an ad for a book which makes unsupported claims (e.g. a sixteenth century map shows the coastline of Antarctica without the ice).

 

[skeptic of oz]

"END-OF-THE-WORLD PROPHECIES:
15 FAILED PREDICTIONS OF THE
END OF THE WORLD DURING 2006"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl1.htm

Now why doesn't that surprise me?

I'm just relieved that we're all still here.
Can anyone tell me though whether any Christian fundies have predicted an exact date for the "Rapture"?
Many of them seem to use the Astrology technique of deliberate vagueness...

 

[maatorc]

My bad. I was not clear enough. I am looking for a citation or explanation of precisely what you mean by "the greatest angle of diversion from the ecliptic of the precessional" specifically, I am interested in your definition of all the terms used.
The link you provided is of no help - it is simply an ad for a book which makes unsupported claims (e.g. a sixteenth century map shows the coastline of Antarctica without the ice).

Hancock discusses the whole subject at great length.
Try browsing: It had a large printing and is probably in many public libraries.

 

[skeptic of oz]

You know for thousands of years "believers" of many shades have subcribed to the belief that the planet will come to grief through some cataclysm and...surprise, surprise...
WE'RE ALL STILL HERE!:D

Ahh some people never learn.

 

[Ladewig]

Hancock discusses the whole subject at great length.
Try browsing: It had a large printing and is probably in many public libraries.

I went to my public library and Hancock's book on 2012 was not available. His Mars book was available. In "The Mars Mystery: the Secret Connection Between Earth and the Red Planet," Hancock claims that Mars was once inhabited by intelligent beings. He goes into great detail about the face on Mars. Strangely enough, he includes NASA's 1998 photo which shows that the face was really a trick of the light combined with the limited resolution of the camera. One might think that those photos would debunk his claims, but he simply describes them as "adding to the controversy."

Given that Hancock has demonstrated that he has little to no understanding of how to evaluate evidence, I do not hold high hopes of finding useful information in his 2012 book.

Furthermore, when I type ""the greatest angle of diversion from the ecliptic of the precessional" into a search engine, this thread is the only hit I get. So, I must ask if you are quoting Hancock accurately.

Lastly, I want to point out that board etiquette requires that folks making unusual claims provide a definitions of their terms either by describing the claim in simpler terms or by proving a link to a site that explains the claim.

 

[Lensman]

Hancock is a kook, he believes that the Pyramids & Sphinx were built over 10,000 years ago by the Atlanteans.

 

[maatorc]

I went to my public library and Hancock's book on 2012 was not available. His Mars book was available. In "The Mars Mystery: the Secret Connection Between Earth and the Red Planet," Hancock claims that Mars was once inhabited by intelligent beings. He goes into great detail about the face on Mars. Strangely enough, he includes NASA's 1998 photo which shows that the face was really a trick of the light combined with the limited resolution of the camera. One might think that those photos would debunk his claims, but he simply describes them as "adding to the controversy."
Given that Hancock has demonstrated that he has little to no understanding of how to evaluate evidence, I do not hold high hopes of finding useful information in his 2012 book.
Furthermore, when I type ""the greatest angle of diversion from the ecliptic of the precessional" into a search engine, this thread is the only hit I get. So, I must ask if you are quoting Hancock accurately.
Lastly, I want to point out that board etiquette requires that folks making unusual claims provide a definitions of their terms either by describing the claim in simpler terms or by proving a link to a site that explains the claim.

Hancock is not necessarily right in all he says.
I am not saying the Earth is about to get trashed: Things may change on the surface, as seems the case right now, and some of us might get trashed, but the Earth will still be here.
Mention of the angle of diversion refers to Earth based observations, a good example of which is found in the precessional cycle of the Orion constellation alignments with the Giza plateau pyramids arrangements.
The ancients seemed to know all about this, regardless of the arguments about when and by whom they were built..

 

[Ladewig]

Hancock is not necessarily right in all he says.
I am not saying the Earth is about to get trashed: Things may change on the surface, as seems the case right now, and some of us might get trashed, but the Earth will still be here.

O.K. Up to now, I have seen no real evidence of that, but I am willing to look at the evidence that leads you to that conclusion. Again, I'll ask: is there a website that summarizes part or all of your position - what is the URL?

Mention of the angle of diversion refers to Earth based observations, a good example of which is found in the precessional cycle of the Orion constellation alignments with the Giza plateau pyramids arrangements.
The ancients seemed to know all about this, regardless of the arguments about when and by whom they were built..

I have a bit of a problem with that last statement. Hancock (et al) believe that the significance of the Giza pyramids is completely dependent on their being built in 10,450 B.C.E. It is that time period, they claim, in which Orion was at its lowest point during the precessional cycle.

Also, even if the ancients knew about the precession of the Earth's axis (sources list the Greeks as discovering it about a century B.C.E.), that does not mean they could forecast events related to "the greatest angle of diversion from the ecliptic of the precessional" (I'm still looking for a definition of that).