It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
if you actually looked at the chart instead of just spinning it in a negative light, you would see that it say 5,990,400,000,000 days...
Originally posted by stereologist
This was also written in 2009
New Solar Cycle Prediction
May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by kalisdad
if you actually looked at the chart instead of just spinning it in a negative light, you would see that it say 5,990,400,000,000 days...
If you actually looked at the chart you'd see that the time you chose is just the bottom row and neglected to pick up the rows above. Then you'd see that as I stated you have the chart showing the age of the Earth well older than the age of the universe. Also, the Earth is only 4.6 billion years old.
you should do a little more research into the idea of the different levels in the chart while we are about to enter the 9th level, it and all preceding levels are part of the ones that came before it.
you dont add them all up.
and the chart has nothing to do with the age of earth, its about the age of the universe.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by kalisdad
you should do a little more research into the idea of the different levels in the chart while we are about to enter the 9th level, it and all preceding levels are part of the ones that came before it.
you dont add them all up.
and the chart has nothing to do with the age of earth, its about the age of the universe.
Of course you add them up. each level is a separate level unless you want to fudge the table. Even the bottom level by itself is so far off from the age of the universe that it is hard to believe that the upper dates are any more accurate.
This is nothing more than a table constructed by Calleman and others and is not based on the Mayans. It's silliness based on selling a hoax.
how does 16.4 billion years equate to far from the assumed age of the universe?
However, as Nielsen and Reunert recently have shown, these are not multilayered heavens and underworlds as once thought. This is a creation by postcontact writers. Thus, Calleman’s whole hierarchical schema is based on Colonial period writers, not on Classic period beliefs.
Originally posted by stereologist
The age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. The age you're giving is 16.4 billion years. That's an error of 2.7 billion years or close to 20%. Now that's an error.
Another issue is that Calleman has a cellular level. The Maya had no concept of cells. Furthermore, Calleman claims that this is when complex life appeared? Really? Do you know the state of the Earth at that time? Was it a hot tropical lush world ready for complex life or a frozen snowball or something in between? Remember that the earliest Cambrian fossils are sponges from 540Ma. Ediacarian fossils go back to possibly 630Ma.
The estimated age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years, the time since the Big Bang. The uncertainty range has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects. These projects included background radiation measurements and more ways to measure the expansion of the universe. Background radiation measurements give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang. Expansion of the universe measurements give accurate data to calculate the age of the universe.
S. H. Suyu, P. J. Marshall, M. W. Auger, S. Hilbert, R. D. Blandford, L. V. E. Koopmans, C. D. Fassnacht and T. Treu. Dissecting the Gravitational Lens B1608+656. II. Precision Measurements of the Hubble Constant, Spatial Curvature, and the Dark Energy Equation of State. The Astrophysical Journal, 2010; 711 (1): 201 DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/201
on another note, I assume you are intentionally ignoring the fact that I corrected you on the fact that all levels are compromised of the levels below them...
and I am still waiting for your thoughts on your continued clain that the Haab calendar only predicts 'poor squash harvests' knowing that its a calendar used for crops and taxes. what do you know about the Tzolkin and Long Count calendar predictions?
Originally posted by stereologist
No. My claim has been that there are no predictions associated with the long count calendar. The only predictions I could find associated with the Mayan calendars was a poor squash and corn crop.
Originally posted by stereologist
There are all sorts of claims about the Mayan calendar. The most important of which is that there are zero prophecies associated with the end of the Haab calendar.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Sator
Question is: "Will havoc, destruction and changes be in tune with this Cycle Ending?"
According to the Mayans, yes.
The Mayans have no predictions associated with the end of the Haab calendar.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Sator
That is not true at all. There are no predictions associated with the end of the Haab calendar. There is another calendar that also cycles and I believe it predicts a drop in squash and corn production.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Sator
Actually you are quite mistaken. If you have evidence of predictions associated with the end of Haab calendar you should post the evidence. As far as the squash and corn failures prediction I was not joking. That is an actual prediction concerning the end of Katun 4.