"the magnetic cycle is 11 years then flip, so 22 for complete magnetic cycle. i have that link bookmarked at home, i will post later (that states
the 1.3 mil days)"
Are you saying that 22 years equals 1.3 million days? Try 8.035.5 days. In a subsequent post, you quote someone named Maurice Cottrell who says:
"the Sun's magnetic field reverses at the end of a complete cycle, after 1,366,040 days. In the Mayan calendar, a complete cycle of time is
, yet you don't say why Cottrell believes this. Is he an astrophysicist or just someone who made something up. What does
Cottrell (and you) know to come up with the 3.1 million-day figure?
"we have been recording sunspots since the 16th century..."
No. We discovered sunspots in the 17th century, and continuous observations didn't start until 1849, although there were good data developed before
"... carbon dating of elements found in trees shows us that info matches back till that time..."
No. Carbon dating shows when something died. Furthermore, given the destruction of forests, dendrochronology is not all that accurate, although, I
will grant that the lowered sunspont activity is correlated to climate changes.
But you're still missing the point.
The dearth of sunspots between ~1600 and 1725 does not appear to be cyclical. And I cannot see how a
22-year sunspot cycle, combined with an anomalous
lowering of sunspot activity, can give any credence whatsoever
to your assertion of
Mayan calendars fortelling something or other.
"8k years back is not hard to verify by this method."
It's not "hard", it's impossible
. Inasmuch as carbon dating simply doesn't reflect sunspot cycles, and there aren't that many
8000-year-old trees for dendochronological studies, the only way I can think of to show climate changes over the past 8000 years is by ice-core
studies, and I can't think of any of them that have any relevance -- can you?
And even if you could, how can you correlate that to sunspots, which weren't even discovered
And even if there was a correlation between sunspot activity and climate change going back 8000 years (whcich, FWIW, I wouldn't find all that
far-fetched), what on Earth does it have to do with a Mayan calendar?
"...mass extinction doesent have to happen every time it comes by."
You're saying, then, there is no correlation between this cycle and any sort of catastrophe? I agree wholeheartedly!
"60 km per year, not second. that was a typo but if you researched it you would know... "
the researcher here, not me. But I do know that the magnetic pole, even though it may move on the order of kilometers per year,
going straight south. Here, by the way, is a path of the North Magnetic Pole from 1831, when it was first discovered, until 2001.
Notice that it is heading mainly North, not
South, and that, even though it's been accelerating in the past few years, its movement is now at
40 km/yr, not 60 km/yr.
of not doing research?
"...3.8% is probably better than you did in college..."
Prophet, now you're just being silly. A 3.8 grade average is not the same as 3.8 percent deviation, any more than an IQ of 121 means that I weigh
121 pounds. A 3.8 (out of 4.0) average means that I missed a perfect score by five percent (which, by the way, is
better than I did. I barely
escaped undergraduate school with a 3.0, although my present course averages are a bit higher).
"...and you had computers and calculators."
Not when I
was in undergrad school, kid. We used slide rules
in the sixties LOL!!
But again, your point is irrelevant. The Babylonians, Egyptians, and the Maya themselves were able to predict astronomical phenomena accurately to
within a tenth of a percent error in many cases.
Again, Prophet, your data doesn't add up.
On a more personal note, if you're a Maya fan, check out the photo albums entitled VAC2004: CAHAL PECH
and VAC 2004: XUNANTUNICH
. These are some pictures I took of some Maya ruins, including an observatory, three months
[edit on 19-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]