There Will Be No Galactic Alignment in 2012

so it only takes the milky way 1 year to make a orbit around the galactical plane. that really does not seem plausible. it takes halleys comet 75 years to return to us, but our galaxy traverses its orbit in a year. wow. think i may have to re-think this whole time, distance, rotation thing.

reply to post by Phage


does the milky way's orbit around it wobble also? if not then couldnt you take the orbit and triangulate it and come to a precise center in all of that mess and that would be the center for our orbit. also then take all the close or know galaxies around us and triangulate their position, and orbit around this mess also. then if all seem to orbit around the same spot, would this not be the center. of course each orbit will be different but if all moving around the same area, seems that will be a good start for a center.

reply to post by letscit


to be honest that seems rather a nonsensical comment shal not dignifye with an answer re-read what you have wrote and try to rephraze so it makes sense clutching at straws and trying to put words I did not use in to play

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 13star

 

The Sun has an apparent diameter of about 1/2º, the Rift in the vicinity of Sagittarius about 5º. The Sun actually entered the rift (on the solstice) about 200 years ago and it will be in it for a long time. Will the Sun be in the "center" of the Rift in 2012? Defining the center is pretty arbitrary but between 1900 and 2011 precession has caused the position of the Sun to precess about 1 arcminute, about 0.02º. Where ever the center is, the sun will be there for quite a number of years.

As you say the Sun has entered the rift, which IS at the center of the galaxy..... So how can there be no Galactic alignment on 2012 if we have been in it for 200 years ? Using Stellarium to reference the Suns position in the Milky Way as seen from Earth in December, is a Solar alignment not a Galactic alignment. I don't see where Stellarium comes into it as it's a Solar System simulation, not a reference to where the Solar System is to the Galactic equator.....

This Mayan reference to Bolon Yokte's return in 2012 is what has my interest. Sadly whatever evidence they had on why they really thought it was so important to plot the luminaries was either burnt or sitting in the Vatican Library.

reply to post by 13star


The Rift is not the center of the galaxy. It does obscure the center of the galaxy in Sagittarius, but it extends from Cygnus to Centaurus.

reply to post by bauldrick


was i talking to you? well common sense is missing here also. sweet!


if every galaxy in the known universe is orbiting around the same area, is that not the center? do galaxies not move or orbit themselves? only planets an solar systems have orbits? enlighten me.

form my understanding there are small galaxies orbiting the milky way. i also believe the milky way orbits another. there is no definitive proof one way or another. specualtion tho, yes. 1 year ago no one even knew about the foamy bubbles at the edge of our heliosphere. and they or you or anyone has the foggiest idea what is outside these bubbles.

I've got an astrologer friend (of over 30 years experience) who says the exact same thing.

The whole "Galactic alignment on Dec 21 2012" is an urban myth, perpetuated by a frenzy in the MSM.

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by Phage

 

First, Stellarium isn't accurate for looking 2000 years in the past, let alone, 26,000 years. So saying that the alignment doesn't change over 2000 years by looking at Stellarium is pointless.
Second, how many times can you contradict yourself? "There will be no galactic alignment in 2012" "Well, actually there will be but it happens every year"
Third, I've never seen anyone say the galactic alignment will directly cause any catastrophe. Every thing I've read says it just represents a spiritual cycle. And most of the people talking about the galactic alignment say it represents change for the better.

According to a documentary series I watched recently called The Pyramid code, the alignment marks the end of the spiritual age, after which we enter into a new age. This age has the potential to bring an enlightenment of the conciousness; possibly awakening more senses in humankind. This theory also aligns with the belief of other ancient civilisations. The fact is that WE have been here for no time at all and somehow decided that we are the almighty all-knowing race. NO. we know sod all in the grand scheme of things. People in the past thought this point in time was significant for some reason, the evidence is there if you expand your mind outside of the egotistical "truth" we've concocted and stuck to without question (darwinism for one).

As for the OP, trying to prove/disprove something we (as a race) know nothing at all about (other than that based on our own self certified fact and a few bits of software) doesn't make you look clever in my eyes. Information was lost from Ancient civilisations because of people dis-believing it for one reason or another. Do you really think it was an accident that the pyramids align with the stars? Maybe all this ancient theory IS BS, or maybe a more spiritual existence just didnt fit with the grand plans of human greed and power?

reply to post by babybunnies


No, this time the MSM cannot be blamed. The only ones culpable of disseminating this trash are the likes of Jenkins, Arguelles, and all the others that bought into their scam.

reply to post by ceetee


I keep asking this question, but so far have yet to receive a response. Can you direct me to either primary sources or academic papers that show other civilizations placed a special emphasis on 2012?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


and you'd take an academic paper to be FACT would you? Again, this sits within our OWN understanding of things.

Please see CPAK, then tell me what's wrong with the information you find there and how it's any less accurate than what you may have been taught at school?

reply to post by ceetee


Well for one, their methodology is completely flawed. They are starting with the premise that there's a second star in our solar system and then setting out to prove it. That's a big no-no in science. You let the evidence guide you to a conclusion. You don't start with a conclusion then set out to find supporting data. If you use that methodology your data set is sure to be biased. Second, their findings are not peer-reviewed. That's what makes academic papers so valuable. They must first be reviewed by others in the field and if the methodology or conclusion is lacking it is not published. To close here is a quote from Bad Astronomy on BRI:

"There are several things which rule out such an object out to quite a distance (half a light year IIRC). One is the measurements of the many millisecond pulsars, which would show a systematic movement of the Sun and Earth as influenced by a mass of as little as a few tens of the mass of the Earth. Another is the observations of the orbiting IR telescopes, in which the dimmest Red Dwarf or Brown Dwarf would stand out pretty brightly if it were out there."

Source

So can you provide me with the information I'm asking for? I'll even make it easier, can you provide me a non-New Age or 2012 source that shows other civilizations placed an emphasis on 2012?

Has anyone taken the inaccuracies of the Gregorian Calendar into consideration? I'm not sure what I think yet so I wanted to get everyone's take on this. Taken from elenin.org

"To be as brief as possible, the solar dating system that is the Gregorian calendar that you swear by, inherited a number of flaws in them. The most obvious one would be of the missing day every century, owing to the rounding up of 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45.25 seconds to 3651/4 days in the Julian calendar that was used before the Gregorian one, which by the 16th century, saw to the ‘disappearance’ of 14 days! In addition, Pope Gregory, who authorized the conversion to the Julian calendar in 1582, shifted the calendar by 11 days, which saw the calendar leap from March 4, 1582 to March 15 the next day. In addition, the new calendar is still losing 30 seconds from the solar cycle annually. Add to the fact that the Julian calendar that was adopted by, who else, Julius Caesar in the eight century made a leap of 67 days to sync with the solar cycle, and upon his death, there were confusions with the methodology involved, with the most damaging being the three years leap years (instead of the now common four). Recalculating the Great Cycle in its entirety against the modern calendar, taking into account the faults and adjustments incorporated into it would reveal that the prophesized date would in fact be on October 28, 2011 – within weeks of Elenin’s projected perihelion, and more alarmingly, within 12 days of its forecasted perigee (closest orbital distance to the center of earth)."

reply to post by Phage


I'm less focused on "galactic alignments" and inbound neos and more focused on what the Sun is going to do...
I notice no one seems to ever truly debunk Mr. Patrick Geryl's ideas about the Sun so what do you think of that?



Note he has had this video up for a while now...but I think this same info about the Sunspot activity being lower than usual only came out in the last 2 weeks or so.

What are your thoughts on this?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Science is automatically flawed then if you start from nowhere, lead to nowhere, with no conclusion possible ever, until it "somehow" smacks you in the face.

No wonder things like disease cures are thrown away, " Hey guys this cure was found by someone who was looking for it, not the way we say !!,, Throw it out !! "

reply to post by Xcalibur254


who says "new age" isn't right? do you believe everything you are told to be fact without question? you really trust the society you live in that much?

reply to post by N0neSoBlind


Archaeologist Geraldo Aldana has actually recently written an essay on the problems with correlating the Mayan calendar to the Gregorian calendar. Once again Johan Normark provides for us a detailed summary while tying it into the 2012 hysteria.

2012: The Maya calendar correlation problem pt 1
Pt 2 - Thompson's Test
Pt 3 - Landa's Equation
Pt 4 - Oxkutzcab
Pt 5 - The Katun Count
Pt 6 - The Highland data
Pt 7 - The celestial record
Pt 8 - Conclusion

However, this does not validate the October 28, 2011 date. This date is actually more flawed than the December 21, 2012 date. For one it is not actually based on any archaeological records. It is instead the creation of one man, Carl Johan Calleman. In previous posts I have detailed why Callenman's theory is flawed in many aspects. I will once again let Normark detail why Calleman's date is wrong. He wrote this post shortly after his summary of the Aldana essay and in it he examines Calleman's calendar in reference to it.

Calleman's "2011 correlation"

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


Science builds upon previous research. Before one performs an experiment they must provide justification for doing it. That's the purpose of a literature review. The BRI however, did not start with any previous research. They started under the assumption that there is a second sun, despite the literature showing this is very unlikely, and are now looking for the evidence to support their predefined conclusion.

reply to post by ceetee


Considering how many New Age writers have been shown to be frauds, I think I'll stick with peer-reviewed sources. Every time I read something by a New Age author they do one of two things. One, they fail to provide any sources whatsoever so it becomes impossible to check any of their information. Two, they provide sources, but when you go back and check these sources they say something completely different from what the New Age author is saying.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


this debate is a total waste of time, to the human race, science is fact. Many people are now throwing wacko theories around about this or that, but one fact appears to be clear in all the theories; we currently believe that we are greater than any civilisation that's been before, so we discount anything that involves thinking outside the confines of science.

I think this is definitely not a good starting point for any research. Maybe these ancient civilisations were more advanced than we give them credit for. Maybe their entire reason for being was totally different, maybe they knew things and did things that we have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of?.... Science won't touch these things as they go against the grain, if the peers shout you down then you're ruined. As has been proved time after time, people have throughout history voiced their "off the wall" findings only to be branded an idiot by the experts , then 200 yrs later science catches up. That's my issue with science, the science community has never really spent much of it's time investigating things it doesn't really understand, it just generalises with half baked theories that don't really stand up to scrutiny (re: Pyramid use, building etc) Maybe it's time they did.