2012: what do we actually know?

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
What do we know about 2012? LOL Nothing, other than it's a day on debatable calendar system.

That's it.




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:48 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.


In the Gregorian calendar, one year has an average length of about 365.2425 days, and there is a variation of .0003. In comparison, the Mayan calendar has an average length of about 365.2420 days and a variation of .0002.

Thereby the Mayan calendar is more accurate.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


Here's what *I* know*...

The acceleration of [everything] seems to be culminating at right about this time.

- Economic woes seem to be more out of control than ever with the spiraling of the dollar, the realization that America's debt will NEVER be paid off and pretty soon creditors (China) are going to start expecting products instead of worthless paper, and the collapsing of Nations (Greece, Iceland, Spain...)

- Political problems seem to be mounting, and it stems much further than the WWE-esque douche, er... two-party system that we have here in the U.S. We're talking crazy North Korea, we're talking biblical prophecy unfolding with the likely attack of Isreal by Iran.

We could go thru category after category, but I would prefer to think of the grandest of them all - the realization of what it all means and where we all came from - bare with me...

So, For many thousands of years, humanity, with a few notable exceptions, did not recognize the existence of the Solar System. People believed the Earth to be stationary at the center of the universe.

It wasn't until a mere 400 years ago, that someone first openly suggested that the sun, and not the earth, was the center of our system.

We don't even discover Pluto until the 1930s.

The Hubble telescope goes up in the 90s (only TWENTY Years ago), and we see further away and back in time and more objects than we ever had before. We start to get a clearer picture about the origins of it all. Not just planets and our solar system but ALL of it. Right down to the last nano-second - this is where physics breaks down for the Big Bang Theory (or Collision Theory if you've been keeping up).

NOW, in the last TWO YEARS, up goes Kepler and up goes the Vatican:

1) Kepler Telescope is finding 'Earthlike' planets all over the place, even though the sample size is equatable to an 8oz. glass of water in the oceans of our earth.

2) the Vatican makes the startling proclamation - for the first time in its 2,000 year history, the catholic church acknowledged the possibility that intelligent life could exist on other planets, and that a belief in extraterrestrials does not necessarily contradict a belief in God - and have since jumped in the search with telescope purchases of their own (Excuse me? Nice 180'!)

[I realize quite bit happened in between each of those gaps, but you get the idea - these were pretty significant milestones]



Bottom line: I'm telling you, if you could graph our knowledge about the universe and ourselves over time, you would get a parabolic curve accelerating into the sky whose asymptote is right about now! (2012)




**This is a self-plagerized/paraphrased post from another thread that I thought was applicable, here. I also plan(ned) on making an entire separate thread with this information backed with data, links, and deeper explanations. We'll see.


[edit on 9/2/2010 by SquirrelNutz]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by lestweforget
 


Nobody can predict the future.

You cite Mother Shipton who never existed. Weird. The Hopi prophecies do not mention the world web. There is no known chamber below the Sphinx. All you have is some shoehorning here and some of it is rather bad.


Nobody can Predicted the Future

Well here ya go I recommend you watching this as i seen this on HBO when i was young and was a Talk around my family House Hold

When i went to the military ( Marine Corps ) Right at Boot Camp the 1st Gulf War Started in 1990 and in Boot Camp all i can think of is what that movie Said in the Future Predictions I even went to my senior DI and asked him about that movie He said he never heard of it and he would look it up at the rental on the Parris Island base The Next day he said I hope your not Right.. He looked at me and said We Will End it right there Understand ! Recruit as i Assume he saw it and i left it as that ..

At the Time The Gulf war was Thought to be another Vietnam

I remember the Training of Gas/Chemical Warfare as Saddam Used it before I Remember New Fresh Recruits coming by the Hundreds some with no issued fatigues Training in Civilian Cloths I said to myslef WTF is going on here .... but...
The Gulf War Ended Quickly then it started up again with Clinton then with Bush JR in 2001 then 2003 right up to the Present day 7 years That Movie has Marked Me ... But there is no Mention the Ending of the World until until 3797 as in his quatrains and the movie says and no mention of 2012
except the predictions of Global Disasters & WW3 Destroying the Earth
and Earth Shaking it off and is Renewed Again...

That Movie Is called The Man Who Saw Tomorrow


Explain this Please thanks !

911 Iraq Middle east Invasion ... Etc..
It was not a Nuke as this video shows it was 2 Jet Airliners
Reason Being that this Docu-movie was made During the Cold War
when the Nuclear Holocaust Red Scare was at its Peak

watch out a Man with a Blue Turbin !

The Man Who Saw Tomorrow ( Made in 1980 Narrated by Orson Wells )

Google Video Link




[edit on 2-9-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
What I'd like to know is why being skeptical about rather fantastical claims being made about an arbitrary date due to a lack of knowledge about the workings of the Mayan calendar and a dead language or two is looked on so sourly. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making the claims to begin with? Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's probable, or even, remotely likely, and being skeptical of all these claims of global destruction would seem like common sense; how many times before has the Apocalypse(tm) been imminent? Y2K, the Swine Flu, the Roman end-of-the-world in 389 BC, 70 CE for the Essenes, Y1K, 1700 for the Puritans... there are literally hundreds of doomsday predictions over history, stretching all the way back to about 2800 BC, according to Asimov's Book of Facts. Why should anybody regard 2012 as any different? Because cuneiform-illiterate charlatans and New Age "mystics" have said so? That seems like rather flimsy evidence to me, and attacking those of us who haven't jumped on the bandwagon based on a few poorly researched books, a terrible movie, and some Coast2Coast interviews (y'know that's mostly for entertainment, right?) smacks of desperation on the part of the people doing the attacks. The only thing I've seen *any* evidence of is the predicted solar storms, and unless not being able to access Facebook or play Halo is your idea of an apocalypse, it's unlikely to destroy civilization, usher in a new and poorly-defined "paradigm shi(f)t" or do much more than make the electric company work overtime for a few days. I get the feeling that most people who believe this stuff to be true mostly want it to be, and much of the "evidence" brought forward for it backs this up.
Every generation has at least one doomsday; they all end up being silly- Google 5-5-2000 for a great example.
If something truly world-altering happens, I'll eat my hat. But so far, none of the evidence presented makes any sense, and I'll retain my healthy skepticism until I'm proven wrong, rather than vice versa.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ptmckiou
 


There you are. You never showed how the Mayan calendar was more accurate. You simply tossed out these numbers. What you failed to do was show how the Mayan number was calculated.

Until you show the origin of that number for the Mayan we will simply have to consider this an unsubstantiated claim.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


I always liked your posts. They always show logic and deep thought. Keep up the work.




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


But the gregorian calendar is more accurate than the Mayan calendar? But according to some the gregorian calendar is supposed to start via the death of JC? But skeptics believe JC was nothing more than a mythological figure?

I don't get it?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


The Gregorian calendar starts in 1582. Errors in the Julian calendar are not a part of the Gregorian calendar.

I'm just waiting for the Mayan accuracy person to explain why the high variance in the Mayan calendar.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 



I'm telling you, if you could graph our knowledge about the universe and ourselves over time, you would get a parabolic curve accelerating into the sky whose asymptote is right about now!


BTW, parabolic curves are not asymptotic.
It has been well known that the information we collect about the world is increasing each year. The gains are thought to be exponential. There is no observable barrier. The more we learn the more we find things that we don't know. That is to be expected.

Heliocentric models have been around for over 2000 years. You mention Pluto was not discovered until the 1930s. No wonder. It is quite small and far away. Now we know it is just one of many such objects, a new class of objects. The Kuiper belt survey will be completed soon. The solar system does not end there. The ability to find new planets around other stars is gaining momentum. Better instruments will see more and more of the universe. The gains will increase for centuries to come.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I was thinking of the coptic calendar, but the gregorian calendar basically adopted most of the coptic calendar dates.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


The only prophecies I follow are the hopi prophecies and some native american prophecies. They are 100% correct so far.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


They are once again just vague prophecies that a person can apply to a number of situations. Also, the Hopi prophecy makes no mention whatsoever of 2012, so how can you use that as your basis for believing that something will happen in 2012?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


The Hopi prophecies are 100% accurate? You've been pushing comet Holmes as the blue kachina. Still doing that? It was a yellow comet, not blue.

Believers shoehorning events to fit vague statements also leads to 100% acceptable. It's a tried and true technique used to delude the self.

What other prophecies are you referring to?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 



I'm telling you, if you could graph our knowledge about the universe and ourselves over time, you would get a parabolic curve accelerating into the sky whose asymptote is right about now!


BTW, parabolic curves are not asymptotic.


Incorrect, sir. Parabolas certainly *can* have an asymptote
(it's called a "Curvilinear asymptote")

BUT, to be fair, you would be right to say it wasn't as accurate an example as I could've used for this situation - what I was trying to say is, a graph increasing exponentially, tending to infinity, right about this time. But that's a little wordy and confusing for our purposes, here. Moving on.



It has been well known that the information we collect about the world is increasing each year. The gains are thought to be exponential. There is no observable barrier. The more we learn the more we find things that we don't know. That is to be expected.


You're missing the point. While what you said in the passage above is true, you're forgetting something big: We are gaining knowledge SO abundantly and quickly, that soon we will have ALL answers as far as our history (inc. origins), and likely our future. When that happens, religions will collapase (Christianity, at the very least) and humanity will likely have to drastically change the way they view life, our history, and place in the universe.





[edit on 9/3/2010 by SquirrelNutz]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


The only prophecies I follow are the hopi prophecies and some native american prophecies. They are 100% correct so far.



I've always heard this but have never really examined it closely. Would you please link a source you like or give a quick cliffnotes version (assuming it accurately depicts the previous 4 cataclysms(?))



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 



You're missing the point. While what you said in the passage above is true, you're forgetting something big: We are gaining knowledge SO abundantly and quickly, that soon we will have ALL answers as far as our history (inc. origins), and likely our future.

That is as I pointed out is a preposterous statement. Actually, the more we look about us the more we realize that there is much to learn.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrvy
What evidence do you expect there to be?

If I decided to walk up to you in the street and punch you in the face and break your nose, the lack of evidence preceding the event would not in any way prevent me from doing it. Even if you'd been told that I was likely to punch you in the face, there would still be no evidence of it. Should you then approach me without caution, because of that lack of evidence? What if someone you thought you could trust knew that I was going to punch you, but decided to tell you with absolute certainty that I definitely wasn't going to punch you. Would your faith in them stop me from crunching every bit of cartilage in your nose? Or maybe you should listen to the warnings, even without evidence, and leave town, try to get as far away from me as possible in the hopes that I wouldn't find you? You could live the rest of your life in fear of me.

Believe you me, if something is coming this way with our names on it, you will not be saved by a lack of evidence before hand.


The difference between you and I is that I wouldn't leave town because History channel told me that the Mayans predicted I would be punched in the face.

I don't buy into theories unless there is something that lends credability to it. Nothing lends credability to 2012 other than History channel saying over and over again "some believe this is a dire warning of occurances to come". Oooohh scary. I better get out of town.


BTW, I never said that the lack of evidence would enable me to survive the cataclysm. I think you're missing my point. If there is one I will die too. I'm mortal. I am saying that there is no evidence which points to such an event. Just fabrications, outright lies, misinterpretations and fear mongering. Sometimes even blind hope for this to happen.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by spinalremain]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I have a question for some of you guys/gals.

Why is it that you put creedence to The Mayans predicting the end, but disregard the belief that there were once mud ppl, wood ppl and so forth? Do you also believe that there wer ppl made of mud and so on?

I am not saying that because their folklore sounds silly that the rest should be disregarded. That would be ignorant I think, but why is this never ever brought up. I'm so sick of hearing how these Mayan guys were so advanced and super knowledgeable. They believed that mud ppl were walkin around!


My point is that even if they did predict that we were going to die in 2012 (which they didn't), shouldn't we first address the fact that they were just as fallable as any other civilization? This is what I don't understand. Why is their prophecy (which doesnt exist) more valid than any other?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Here's my thing. I don't actually buy into the whole 2012 annhilation thing.But it is kind of like the Atheists apocalypse of choice. Look, we're all getting wiped out, but it's not because some God is mad at us, it's because it's the natural order of things!





top topics
 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join