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.

 

The D4rk Kn1ght / October 28, 2011 / 10/28/2011 Mega Thread

page: 6
75
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 



that 10% uncertainty put the possibility of a 16.4 billion year old universe well within the range of the Hubble Constant.

That's bad math. The 16.4 billion is 19.8% out, not within 10%. Also, you are using a 1999 article. I referred to a 2010 article which had a much smaller uncertainty. With time come improvements in precision.




posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


The point is that there are no predictions associated with the end of the long count calendar. End of story.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 



my biggest issue with people claiming nothing is going to happen, is that they seem to forget that it has already happen multiple times in the past...

to think that some event couldn't wipe 90%+ of all life on Earth(again) just because we are human and we have technology, is preposterous.


First off, not all extinctions were as severe. You appear to be hinting at the Permian event.

Second, the existence of previous events does not mean that another event is going to happen. These events are possibly related, but that relationship is inconclusive. Efforts to find a relationship between extinction events has resulted in a number of different periodicities. Although there may be a relationship between extinction events, it is to date unclear.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by kalisdad
 



that 10% uncertainty put the possibility of a 16.4 billion year old universe well within the range of the Hubble Constant.

That's bad math. The 16.4 billion is 19.8% out, not within 10%. Also, you are using a 1999 article. I referred to a 2010 article which had a much smaller uncertainty. With time come improvements in precision.


you are mixing our numbers... intentionally.

'The most recent observational determination of the proportionality constant obtained in 2010[5] based upon measurements of gravitational lensing by using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) yielded a value of H0 = 70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc. In 2009 also using the Hubble Space Telescope the measure was 74.2 ± 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc.[6] The results agree closely with an earlier measurement of H0 = 72 ± 8 km/s/Mpc obtained in 2001 also by the HST.[7] In August 2006, a less-precise figure was obtained independently using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory: H0 = 77 (km/s)/Mpc or about 2.5×10−18 s−1 with an uncertainty of ± 15%.[8] NASA summarizes existing data to indicate a constant of 70.8 ± 1.6 (km/s)/Mpc if space is assumed to be flat, or 70.8 ± 4.0 (km/s)/Mpc otherwise.[9]"

en.wikipedia.org...'s_law#Disputes_over_Hubble.27s_constant

the fact is we don't completely understand WMAP data and the Hubble Constant, both have margins of error to them.

the fact that a theory says these ancient people date the universe at 16.4 billion years is just as valid as any of the modern theories putting the age at 13.7 billion years

"The current WMAP results show the Hubble Constant to be 73.5 +/-3.2 (km/sec)/Mpc. If the WMAP data is combined with other cosmological data, the best estimate is 70.8 +/- 1.6 (km/sec)/Mpc."

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Note the use of BEST ESTIMATE

you know as well as I do that these figures could change in the coming years and put the age of the universe at 16.4 billion years. especially considering we don't even understand dark matter and dark energy

but you are so entrenched in trying to disprove anythiing related to 2012 and some of the theories of the mayan translations that you will skew the data, twist peoples words, and eventually start the insulting phase of your rebuttal just to 'make your point'

enough members on ATS have pointed this out for me to know I am speaking from solid ground

you know that 16.4 billion years is well within the range of possibility, but for some reason you are fighting nail and tooth against admiting it.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
First off, not all extinctions were as severe. You appear to be hinting at the Permian event.

Second, the existence of previous events does not mean that another event is going to happen. These events are possibly related, but that relationship is inconclusive. Efforts to find a relationship between extinction events has resulted in a number of different periodicities. Although there may be a relationship between extinction events, it is to date unclear.


you are correct, not all of them were as severe, but 5 or 6 times in the past few hundred million years, 40-95% of life went extinct in the blink of the geological eye

and worst case scenario for a future event would be 90% or more

but even based on modest estimations, 3 billion people are going to die in some cataclysmic event in the near future, and the further that event is from today, the higher the death toll will be as the world population grows

I was just taking into consideration the developed worlds need for technology and the already fragile 3rd worlds daily struggle when I postulated a 90% death toll in an upcoming event

a large portion of the world already struggles daily with the need of food and fresh water, what would happen to them if things got worse?

the developed world is conditioned to shopping in stores and buying food and water from an near endless supply, most of them have little to no survival skills... I think they would be even worse off if somethiing were to happen to a large portion of the world population and they couldn't get any more from the local store

not saying such event would wipe out 90% of the living things in the world, but I feel that humans would be hit the hardest from such an event



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


I agree that the average person is ill prepared for long term calamities. That is a result of the specialization of labor that almost everyone is involved with today.

If there were a large object headed our way, and many scientists have suggested an extraterrestrial cause for extinctions, we'd see it coming a long way off. That does not mean that we could reach it and attempt to divert the path of the object. But at least the larger destructive objects can be seen far off. The dangers that we are aware of are smaller objects that would be stunning in their destructive power, but are not extinction level sized objects.

Some of the events have been postulated to be terrestrial in nature. Those would be slower events such as volcanism or large scale carbon dioxide releases from the oceans.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


I'm sure you've heard this before, but I thought I'd put it out there again:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love
(Robert Heinlein)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


lol

sounds like I'm more than prepared for things then...

except writing a sonnet... never been a strong point for me
edit on 18-11-2010 by kalisdad because: spelling



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


"I would write a sonnet, but I don't know where to start. I'm so used to laughing at the things in my heart..."

-The Police, "Does Everyone Stare"



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Addition:


THREE new planets photographed in the sky!! nibiru? eris? sackloth?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by NWOnoworldorder
started on 11/22/2010 @ 08:55 AM



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Not more lens flare shots! Oh brother.

At least this person wasn't shooting through a double paned window and showing a reflection.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Addition:

Nasa may soon confirm planet "X" !!
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by buddybaney
started on 12/1/2010 @ 08:36 AM



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by kalisdad
 



how does 16.4 billion years equate to far from the assumed age of the universe?

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.

Does this enormous error affect Calleman's 2011 date?

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.

Calleman's dates and claims do not match actual events - for any of his time periods.

2012: How to spot a prophet’s Maya hoax – designing a personal cosmology

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.


So this layered scheme is not a part of the Mayan beliefs. The cellular levels and galactic levels are concepts unknown to the Maya. In fact, it appears that mammalian is a concept that was not known to the Maya.


I'd suggest you to actually show your sources. As far as I know, science has been wrong numerous times. How do you know for fact that it's 13.7 billion years old? No one knows how old it is. No one knows how it started. All we have are theories. And again, show me your sources of your claims (the Mayans didn't know about cells, mammalians...ok, prove that to me). I'm not saying what you say is false, but you shout at people to actually come forward with sources, but you are making unsourced claimed.

And a question on a more personal level...Why do you feel the need to be arrogant, and feel like you know everything. You know, you seem to have answers experts have been wondering for a lot of years. What are you doing here on ATS? Go do some scientific research, you seem a valuable mind for mankind. Do you really think you know more on Mayans than people who have dedicated their lives to study ancient civilizations...



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Gab1159
 


he's correct that they think the age of the universe is currently 13.7 billion years old

this is figured by the hubble constant and using WMAP data

what he isn't admiting is the fact that there is a wide range of error on both those points, and that 13.7byo is just the average that they consider the age of the universe to be

the posts I made earlier(with current nasa source) show that there is a 10% margin of error in the hubble constant and if we took the high end of that data, we would in fact be at the 16.4 billion year universe estimation that is being discussed in relation to these mayan theories

(added) and one of my own theories...

they say the universe is expanding at nearly the speed of light. if at some point at the edge of our visible universe, it is actually expanding at the speed of light, we would never know because at that point it is moving away from us faster than light is travelling torwards us and we would see what we considered the end of the expanding universe when it could actually be much larger than what we percieve it to be
edit on 1-12-2010 by kalisdad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Vrils r cool
 

December 21st. One day after mine.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gab1159
 



I'd suggest you to actually show your sources. As far as I know, science has been wrong numerous times. How do you know for fact that it's 13.7 billion years old? No one knows how old it is. No one knows how it started. All we have are theories. And again, show me your sources of your claims (the Mayans didn't know about cells, mammalians...ok, prove that to me). I'm not saying what you say is false, but you shout at people to actually come forward with sources, but you are making unsourced claimed.

And a question on a more personal level...Why do you feel the need to be arrogant, and feel like you know everything. You know, you seem to have answers experts have been wondering for a lot of years. What are you doing here on ATS? Go do some scientific research, you seem a valuable mind for mankind. Do you really think you know more on Mayans than people who have dedicated their lives to study ancient civilizations...


The age of the universe has been recently calculated to 4 digits of precision. You can claim all you want that no one knows, but that is simply arguing that you are ignorant of the means of dating the universe.

Did the Mayans know about cells? No. It is not my claim that they did. It is someone else's. They need to substantiate their claim. Cells are not visible to the naked eye. The Mayans had no microscopes. Therefore, the Mayans did not know about cells. Can you show me anything in which they mentioned cells? Of course not. The only person claiming this is a fraud.

When you say "all we have are theories" it tells me that you do not understand that there is a difference between the use of the word in science and in the vernacular.

In the latter part of your statement you confuse the meaning of arrogance with my position that it is fair game to challenge. Sure I challenge. It seems that when my challenges are knock down punches you reply that I am being arrogant. I like some of your ideas and I think that very likely you might take up the concept of challenging ideas and asking tough questions, questions which you incorrectly label as arrogant.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


You are taking in a number of dates from a large range of years. It is clear that as time progresses better measurements are possible. To suggest that older, rougher measurements have the same precision as newer measurements misses the point that any measurement has a quality known as precision.

Here is a recent article in which the precision is 170 million years.
DISSECTING THE GRAVITATIONAL LENS B1608+656. II. PRECISION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HUBBLE CONSTANT, SPATIAL CURVATURE, AND THE DARK ENERGY EQUATION OF STATE*
That's amazing and a lot tighter than your 10% claim.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Addition:

The High Mayan Council Has Spoken for the First Time in 500 Years.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by wcitizen
strated on 12/15/2010 @ 08:24 PM



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by kalisdad
 


You are taking in a number of dates from a large range of years. It is clear that as time progresses better measurements are possible. To suggest that older, rougher measurements have the same precision as newer measurements misses the point that any measurement has a quality known as precision.

Here is a recent article in which the precision is 170 million years.
DISSECTING THE GRAVITATIONAL LENS B1608+656. II. PRECISION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HUBBLE CONSTANT, SPATIAL CURVATURE, AND THE DARK ENERGY EQUATION OF STATE*
That's amazing and a lot tighter than your 10% claim.




A Galaxies Cluster Older Than Possible! Scientists say...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

again, even the scientists that you so faithfully rely on don't really know what exactly they are putting forth as 'facts'



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by kalisdad
 


You are taking in a number of dates from a large range of years. It is clear that as time progresses better measurements are possible. To suggest that older, rougher measurements have the same precision as newer measurements misses the point that any measurement has a quality known as precision.

Here is a recent article in which the precision is 170 million years.
DISSECTING THE GRAVITATIONAL LENS B1608+656. II. PRECISION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HUBBLE CONSTANT, SPATIAL CURVATURE, AND THE DARK ENERGY EQUATION OF STATE*
That's amazing and a lot tighter than your 10% claim.




A Galaxies Cluster Older Than Possible! Scientists say...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

again, even the scientists that you so faithfully rely on don't really know what exactly they are putting forth as 'facts'



I'm reminded of Engywook from 'The Neverending Story". He just couldn't wrap his mind around the Southern Oracle, just as Stereologist or "even the scientists [that he]... faithfully [relies] on [who] don't really know..."

[ex/Engywook and his wife Urgl are a quarrelling pair of gnomes who lives close to the location of the Southern Oracle. Engywook is a research scientist who has studied the Southern Oracle and her three gates for most of his life, hoping to publish a book containing his research. However, he has never been to the Southern Oracle himself. Engywook is portrayed as a rather excitable and slightly proud old man. His wife Urgl often gets in his way while brewing potions in a large cauldron, most are for healing wounded people. The two often argue, Engywook referring to Urgl as "wench". Engywook can observe the Riddle Gate, also known as the Sphinxes, from his telescope on a hilltop overlooking the first gate.
en.wikipedia.org...



edit on 12/16/2010 by this_is_who_we_are because: who



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join