2012: what do we actually know?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Dragnet53 thanks for the links interesting reading. What I don't understand is what you think this means for astronomical research.

It seems that you have no idea what the research suggests.




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Zagari
 



So, suddenly all the skeptics know about the future!!!

That's not true. You see your logical fallacy don't you? I'm sure you realized it when you wrote your post. Eliminating the impossible events does not mean that you know the future. In other words, knocking out the stupid ideas still leaves a large number of potential futures.


Now this I respect. You're absolutely correct that falsification isn't making a prediction, it's using the scientific method to rule out possibilities.

For instance, the argument that some magical planet called Nibiru will come colliding with our system strikes me as fanciful bull-puckey, because it runs counter to all current astronomic evidence. Could we be wrong? Sure, but are the chances in favor of this? No. Likewise the idea of "galactic alignment" pulsing some form of mystical energy down on us, doesn't strike me as being particular compelling either. Again my opinion tilts this way because the evidence runs counter to it, not just because my "internal BS detector" picks up the smell of airborne horse-manure.

My personal rant is in opposition to the scoffing attitude (agnostic of skeptical or belief-based tendencies) that promotes simple thinking like, "How can you believe that crap?" This sort of intuition should be used to springboard in to investigating whether or not a claim has merit, not to automatically provide a resolute authoritative conclusion.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


So now you're a Sumer expert. Do you read the cuneiform yourself or do you depend on Sitchin and his false translations to deceive you?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Skeptic = Intelligent, capable of Critical Thinking and Pragmatic.

The other side of the coin is paranoid, gullible and lacking critical thinking skills; I'll stick with Skeptic.

Interesting how few lately are aware that ATS was originally a tool used by Skeptics to disprove wild eyed theories with no merit; to expose the bad people spreading the garbage for financial gain; to expose the hoaxers and those acting on paranoid delusions.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIrvy
 


That's a rather bad analogy for the case of Planet X, an often claimed event for 2012. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that no new planet is in our solar system that has an orbit that enters the orbits of the known planets.

What does that have to do with an assault? Nothing.

Another claim is a pole shift. There is extensive evidence in the geology against such an event happening. TPWs are slow and take million of years, and have not occurred in 200My.

What does your assault analogy have to do with pole shifts? Nothing.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The Maya were truly one of the great civilizations of Mesoamerica, and their calender is beyond intriguing.

However, we cannot ignore the role that hallucinogens played in the development of their cosmology.

I don't think that we have the capacity to comprehend Mayan cosmology on the same level as the Maya. Hallucinogenic drugs are certainly still used in our society but not in the same capacity for the most part; it simply isn't an accepted practice in our society.

I think the end of the calender had a much deeper, spiritual, and pyschedelic meaning to the Maya; however, our society's interpretation starred John Cusack outrunning natural disasters!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIrvy
 



At one time in our history, it was widely believed, having been thoroughly tested and observed by scientists, that certain forms of life spontaneously formed from others


That's not true is it? This is the notion of spontaneous generation. It was formulated by the Greeks who did not do experiments. It wasn't thoroughly tested was it. This theory of the origin of at least some life was based on untested observations. It was due to "feelings" rather than the scientific method.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIrvy
 



What we do know is that something out there is preturbing the orbits of the outer planets

That's false. Nothing is perturbing the orbits of the outer planets. That is why we know that no Earth sized object can be within 70AU.


We also know that NASA used to very openly believe in another body in our system that wasn't visible by conventional means.

You're understanding of the issue is quite confused. Due to a mistake in the estimated mass for Neptune, there appeared to be perturbations in the orbits of the known planets. That search did not assume that the planet "wasn't visible by conventional means." That is your mistaken understanding of the events. IRAS was not sent up with the intent of searching for Planet X.

Your assumption that objects do not reflect light and can only be detected by an IR sensor shows your lack of understanding of astronomical methods.

You've got a lot of reading to do to fix these mistaken beliefs.


scientists agree that it's likely that the moon is hollow.

Please tell us where you got this incredible stinker of an idea. You claim to be a skeptic so you must have checked this claim out yourself.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Please show me how the Mayan calendar is more accurate than the Gregorian. Another poster made than claim and could never substantiate his statement.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Please show me how the Mayan calendar is more accurate than the Gregorian. Another poster made than claim and could never substantiate his statement.


LOL, you are like talking to the Past...
Have you read anything new at all ?

And, how about you starting to prove your Absolute Facts ?
My god man, you post 10 replies in no-time and half of it is from Science.com. (The other half is Old news.)

No Earth sized planet near our solar system ? what is that about ?
Just asking, and btw, I have some questions, Im awaiting an email in the issue, but you seem to have the answeres, so here we go :
in the 1920's an Norwegian Ham operator recieved some signals from the black knight, and other Ham operators around the world claim to have recieved signals too, when they deceded the message (supposedly) it was an star map of the bootes system, what do you think ? I am just asking..



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by TheIrvy
 


At one time in our history, it was widely believed, having been thoroughly tested and observed by scientists, that certain forms of life spontaneously formed from others

That's not true is it? This is the notion of spontaneous generation. It was formulated by the Greeks who did not do experiments. It wasn't thoroughly tested was it. This theory of the origin of at least some life was based on untested observations. It was due to "feelings" rather than the scientific method.


I believe TheIrvy's point has more to do with changing dynamics along with the limitations of knowledge and instrumentation. A good modern example can be seen with radioactive isotopes,


It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a constant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore.
io9.com...

Come to find out, despite the rigorous requirements found in modern academic settings,


A team at Purdue University needed to generate a string of random numbers, a surprisingly tricky task that is complicated by the fact that whatever method you use to generate the numbers will have some influence on them. Physics professor Ephraim Fischbach decided to use the decay of radioactive isotopes as a source of randomness. Although the overall decay is a known constant, the individual atoms would decay in unpredictable ways, providing a random pattern.

That's when they discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry. Intrigued, they checked out long range observations of silicon-32 and radium-226 decay, both of which showed a slight but definite variation over time. Intriguingly, the decay seemed to vary with the seasons, with the rate a little faster in the winter and a little slower in the summer. (ibid.)

Even tried and true theories can produce anomalies, granted usually as boundary conditions like Bose-Einstein condensates, but it does happen; and that should give anyone reason to pause for thought when operating on the assumption that things can be 100% certain across all of time and space.

Personally it was only after I spent time working with genetic programming that I became comfortable with this idea of dealing with all things as simply probabilities.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
And , Vulcan , is/was it an IntraMercurian planet, or an TransPlutonian planet ?

In 1897 they talked about the Transuranusian planets : Pluto and Vulcan, they discovered Pluto 33 years later and was 'surprize' called pluto, we are ofcourse then missing Vulcan..

If it was intramercurian, is it swallowed by the sun(Great Band btw, should be checked out, my fav song is New Moon.) or is Vulcan one of the alread found planets, krmt, that cant orbit our solar system (Sedna,Eris,Xena)..

They said they could start looking for Vulcan in the 80's as it would be visible between the bright constallations ? I might be wrong, it might be disinfo etc... Hmm, I forgot my point : IRAS found something in '83, was nothing ofcourse...


[edit on 2/9/2010 by ChemBreather]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


Well some very educated people have publicly come forward and essentially put their reputations on the line. Some work for NASA or major universities. They have something to lose if they are wrong, but...you don't. You and all of us here on this site can make believe in anything we want and predict anything, and the worse that will happen is people forget after it's over, and then you move along to the next "big prediction" or just extending the deadline. It reminds me of the Christian rapture crowd. It's always just around the corner!

On a side note, I don't believe that the "NWO" controls as much of the lives of us here on this site either, since most people here blame pretty much everything that goes wrong on some invisible group of rich guys ("them" aka "TPTB")...it's obvious since most of us here are well aware of the "tactics" that we should be certainly able to fare better. Truth is that these beliefs limit your abilities, and any 'truth' you feel hurts you more than it helps.

The truth is that "they" can't control everything (and don't need to). The newer generations drink the same water you do and breath the same air. These blame-game plots of complete control don't hold much water when you think about it.

I realize your post is on 2012, BTW.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


Zagari,

Didn't you use timewave zero to predict a major event on June 23rd that was "world changing?"

I don't recall anything at all on June 23rd having occurred that would meet that criteria.

You also utilized timewave zero to predict a 1929 style economy collapse on July 8-11. This did not occur.

We are now presented with two examples of timewave zero and your interpretation of it being inaccurate. That would mean that even though you believe in this timewave zero and are not a sceptic that you were still wrong about the future. Any comments?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


I read new things all of the time.


half of it is from Science.com. (The other half is Old news.)

That's incorrect. It is possible that what I read is also reported in other places, but I do not spend much time at Science.com.


No Earth sized planet near our solar system ? what is that about ?

I did not say that. I said no new planets in our solar system that can enter the orbits of the known planets. By studying the motions of the planets we can determine that new planet sized objects must be far away. Whole sky surveys push planets out even further.

I'm not aware of this 'black knight' claim.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


The claim was that spontaneous generation was well tested. It was not.

Of course there are interesting things to find and we do find them. The discovery by the Purdue team is still being investigated. It's quite interesting.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 



IRAS found something in '83, was nothing ofcourse

IRAS did find something. It found a new type of galaxy. That was the object referred to in the newspaper articles.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
so if i make a calinder that ends tomorrow will everyone think the world is going to end?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


I was shifting the original graphs to do an experiment and the experiment MAY have failed.
But the real colossal event would have been on April 20 ( Oil Spill ) and June 23 would only represent the end of extreme novelty.

Read the threads of Evasius if you want the real Timewave.
I like doing experiments shifting the dates.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zagari
reply to post by matrixportal
 


That's the point. You guys DON'T understand how it works.
Yes, it has been proven right on June 25 2009 and in Fall 2008.
And, on April 14 2010 and April 20 2010...
AUGUST 11 is next BIG POINT.
Anyway, I usually use it with correction of 29 days, found out this way its more precise.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Zagari]



Lets address your reply. You say that you were doing an experiment but in the above quote from a different thread you speak very differently of this correction. Why did you defend this correction in the above quote but denigrate the same correction below?



Originally posted by Zagari
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


I was shifting the original graphs to do an experiment and the experiment MAY have failed.
But the real colossal event would have been on April 20 ( Oil Spill ) and June 23 would only represent the end of extreme novelty.

Read the threads of Evasius if you want the real Timewave.
I like doing experiments shifting the dates.


You made no mention of shifting the original graphs nor did you offer any sort of statement of any experiment which you were conducting when you made those predictions. Your reply to one of the posts clearly shows your belief in the June prediction was held with some fortitude.

In anotherthread you made a series of predictions two of which have not come true with the remainder pending.

You also did not stipulate these conditions with your prediction of a 1929 type economic collapse in the U.S.

I am not attacking you. I am however attempting to point out that anything extrapolated from timewave zero is not something we "know" in the context know is used in the thread tittle. These extrapolations can only be considered observations of an unscientific nature. Nibiru is something we know does not exist based upon countless calculations and observations of the solar system.



[edit on 2-9-2010 by Dilligaf28]





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join