2012, what's it all about?

gpjordanf1 · 30-06-2009 3:03pm

theres one on the bbc science website, pretty recent, it's not a direct photo but it's visible effect's on objects and stars around it.

King Mob · 30-06-2009 3:05pm

efla wrote: »

Hubble site has some mock-ups

You cant image a black hole, NASA use X-ray telescopes to measure radiation from the accretion disk. Sorry I cant remember the name of the telescope - its in near earth orbit

I think this is the one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_X-ray_Observatory

6th · 30-06-2009 3:07pm

Lads quit the snide comments. 1 time warning.

Ostrom · 30-06-2009 3:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

I think this is the one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_X-ray_Observatory

Thats it, cheers!

Nice website too, interesting composites

Mahatma coat · 30-06-2009 3:14pm

OK, we's gettin places, now, I's off ta me Leaba, tomorrow I'll have a beter look at whats actually goin ta happen to all the stars n planets on 21/12/12, hows about we have a discussion about the ins and outs of it armed with the same evel of verifiable evidence and the same level of acceptance of theory as we've done today, y'kno we might just be able ta 'all just get along';)

:D:D:D

AdamusAdonis · 30-06-2009 3:37pm

Nothing will happen... nothing.

JINX!

samson09 · 30-06-2009 5:32pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK I'm feelin exceptionaly lazy, anyone want to produce a Photograph of one of these blackhol3es

Here you go Mahatma

<snipped by bonkey - samson09 banned for one week>

Apologies to the mods and possible yellow card accepted, but it was just something I had to do.

AntiRip · 30-06-2009 6:40pm

King Mob wrote: »

Well if it's in a news article it must be true.

Can you provide anything that shows the this galactic alignment doesn't happen every year but every 26000 years?

Because as far as I see it the galactic centre (the supermassive black hole) is in the constellation of Sagittarius.
Sagittarius is part of the zodiac. The zodiac is a group of 13 constellations the sun appears to go through as viewed from Earth as it orbits the Sun.
During every winter solstice every year the Sun is in the constellation of Sagittarius.
So it is between us and the galactic centre just like every year.

TBH with you I couldn't get a sh1t! Just googled it and got that link. Good day to you sir

HouseHippo · 30-06-2009 9:01pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yea they're talking about an event that happens every 11 years.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Mayan predictions.

Can you provide any evidence that the galactic alignment happens only every 26,000 years?

Can you show where my reasoning is wrong?

I don't believe in any of that mayan Bollox show me where i said i did.....if we are all gonna die in 2012 which we prob aren't i have better things to do than argue with some stranger on the net...good day to you sir

HouseHippo · 30-06-2009 9:02pm

efla wrote: »

In fairness....

Youtube videos?

I'm not a scientist, but I do like astronomy, and there seems to be nonsense coming from all sides here

They are ACTUAL VIDEOS of RESPECTED SCIENTIST MICHIO KAKU,try watching before making snide comments yeah

Ostrom · 30-06-2009 9:25pm

HouseHippo wrote: »

otherwise we would have this planetery realignment of "pola shift" every year which would be catastrophic, according to leading scientists , theoretical physicists and y college books its a 26,000 year cycle...

I did; youtube tags do not constitute proof of credibility.

You should be citing the above - peer reviewed articles, journals, books, college texts. Instances where his work has been subjected to critical appraisal - as I am sure it has.

I am not goading you - there is no need for hostility, I am merely suggesting a better standard of argument

King Mob · 30-06-2009 10:08pm

HouseHippo wrote: »

I don't believe in any of that mayan Bollox show me where i said i did.....if we are all gonna die in 2012 which we prob aren't i have better things to do than argue with some stranger on the net...good day to you sir

Ah my mistake.

You are a believer in all that Nostrodamus nonsense.

HouseHippo wrote: »

Nostradamus used to predict his 2012 theory,i believe this galactic alignment only happens once in the region of 26,000 years

The video you linked is him talking about a solar cycle that reaches it's peak every 11 years.
The is nothing to suggest this peak will be any different that the other ones. And it has no connection what so ever to any alignment of anything.

You've also claimed that there was a 26,000 year cycle and that this information is in college books and believed by scientists.
Have you any evidence to this effect?

30-06-2009 10:14pm

King Mob wrote: »

You've also claimed that there was a 26,000 year cycle and that this information is in college books and believed by scientists.
Have you any evidence to this effect?

He might be talking about the precession of Earth's axis which has a period of about 26,000 years. This phenomenon has nothing to do with 2012 or any of the other nonsense mentioned in this thread.

gpjordanf1 · 30-06-2009 10:15pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ah my mistake.

You are a believer in all that Nostrodamus nonsense.

The video you linked is him talking about a solar cycle that reaches it's peak every 11 years.
The is nothing to suggest this peak will be any different that the other ones.

You've also claimed that there was a 26,000 year cycle and that this information is in college books and believed by scientists.
Have you any evidence to this effect?

Well its all being explained on the History Channel right now and they are confirming the 26,000 year cycle( its the rotation of the constilations ) and the calendar.

6th · 30-06-2009 10:19pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ah my mistake.

You are a believer in all that Nostrodamus nonsense.

Thats pretty condescending.

WakeUp · 30-06-2009 10:31pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ah my mistake.

You are a believer in all that Nostrodamus nonsense.

You need to start putting the words 'in my opinion" infront of all these statements you keep making. So can you state then with 100% certainty that it is indeed "nonsense" as your so elegantly claiming, or is it just your "opinion"? I actually thought we were pass this...

King Mob wrote: »

The video you linked is him talking about a solar cycle that reaches it's peak every 11 years.
The is nothing to suggest this peak will be any different that the other ones. And it has no connection what so ever to any alignment of anything.

You've also claimed that there was a 26,000 year cycle and that this information is in college books and believed by scientists.
Have you any evidence to this effect?

your a great man for demanding evidence, when your asked it for yourself you often provide wikipedia links as your "proof" your words not mine. Id like to respectfully point out that wikipedia should only be used as a basic reference point to further research. The fact that anyone and anything have the ability to edit wikipedia pages, well lets just say its hardly "proof" now is it...

HouseHippo · 30-06-2009 10:32pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ah my mistake.

You are a believer in all that Nostrodamus nonsense.

The video you linked is him talking about a solar cycle that reaches it's peak every 11 years.
The is nothing to suggest this peak will be any different that the other ones. And it has no connection what so ever to any alignment of anything.

You've also claimed that there was a 26,000 year cycle and that this information is in college books and believed by scientists.
Have you any evidence to this effect?

LOOK HERE

I Never said what I believe in I don't believe any of that ****e not that ist any of your business,you are carrying on like a child

My original post was about that solar cycle WHICH HE SAID COULD CHANGE LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!

if you are going to argue at leat read the FCUKING post and stop being snide and arrogant.I said i'm no longer intrested in arguing with you as you have a bad attitude and refuse to accept what anyone else thinks.
I know what I study in college I'm not sending out pictures of my college material
you present your fcuking evidence mr support blah blah when i do send you evidence you just discredit it

AND DONT DARE make one more assumption about what believe

King Mob · 30-06-2009 10:37pm

WakeUp wrote: »

You need to start putting the words 'in my opinion" infront of all these statements you keep making. So can you state then with 100% certainty that it is indeed "nonsense" as your so elegantly claiming, or is it just your "opinion"? I actually thought we were pass this...

It's my opinion. That opinion is based on the fact that Nostrodamus never predicted anything with any accuracy.
It was also meant to be ironic.

WakeUp wrote: »

your a great man for demanding evidence, when your asked it for yourself you often provide wikipedia links as your "proof" your words not mine. Id like to respectfully point out that wikipedia should only be used as a basic reference point to further research. The fact that anyone and anything have the ability to edit wikipedia pages, well lets just say its hardly "proof" now is it...

Except most good wikipedia articles have references at the bottom of the page.
It usually sums up a point in a way that's accessible to lay people.

If there's anything I've claimed fthat isn't sufficiently backed up please point it out.

And what about the fact that CT sites don't usually have references, rarely change wrong facts and can be set up by anyone?

bonkey · 30-06-2009 10:38pm

WakeUp wrote: »

You need to start putting the words 'in my opinion" infront of all these statements you keep making. So can you state then with 100% certainty that it is indeed "nonsense" as your so elegantly claiming, or is it just your "opinion"? I actually thought we were pass this...

Rather than warn you for back-seat modding, I'm going to take a different approach...

As I've already said to espinolman elsewhere...

People making comments like this are going to be held to the standards they demand of others.

I expect you to start putting the words "in my opinion" in front of anything you can't definitively prove, and I expect you to be willing to offer definitive proof for anything you don't clearly mark as an opinion.

Alternately, you can agree that your post was out of order, and let calmer heads prevail all around.

bonkey · 30-06-2009 10:40pm

HouseHippo wrote: »

LOOK HERE

No, you look here.

Read the charter before posting again.

Consider yourself lucky that 6th only gave KM a warning in-thread, because that post of yours deserves a ban, but in the interests of balance, you're getting the same treatment he did.

WakeUp · 30-06-2009 10:44pm

bonkey wrote: »

As I've already said to espinolman elsewhere...

People making comments like this are going to be held to the standards they demand of others.

I expect you to start putting the words "in my opinion" in front of anything you can't definitively prove.

Thats no bother at all Bonkey, when I am not stating something as fact I usually say in my opinion, so no problem there. Seen as though you've decided to take me up over this I respectfully suggest you have a word to kingmob aswell, if we are maintaining standards and all that. Point taken though I will make sure I am extra clear when stating fact or opinion..

King Mob · 30-06-2009 10:46pm

HouseHippo wrote: »

LOOK HERE

I Never said what I believe in I don't believe any of that ****e not that ist any of your business,you are carrying on like a child

My original post was about that solar cycle WHICH HE SAID COULD CHANGE LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!

if you are going to argue at leat read the FCUKING post and stop being snide and arrogant.I said i'm no longer intrested in arguing with you as you have a bad attitude and refuse to accept what anyone else thinks.
I know what I study in college I'm not sending out pictures of my college material
you present your fcuking evidence mr support blah blah when i do send you evidence you just discredit it

AND DONT DARE make one more assumption about what believe

Ok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

What he is talking about is a cycle that happens every 11 years.

The last high point (solar maximum) was in 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
World didn't end then.
There is no evidence that the next solar maximum will be any worse.

There is no evidence that a solar flare will be caused by any alignment of anything.

It's more likely Kaku was playing it up a little while being on Fox news.

HouseHippo · 30-06-2009 10:47pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

What he is talking about is a cycle that happens every 11 years.

The last high point (solar maximum) was in 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
World didn't end then.
There is no evidence that the next solar maximum will be any worse.

There is no evidence that a solar flare will be caused by any alignment of anything.

It's more likely Kaku was playing it up a little while being on Fox news.

• Claims, Evidence, Proof
If you are stating something as fact please post your sources or any relevant links/info. Doing so will strengthen your point. Where someone states something as their opinion it is just that, an opinion. Asking "why" they believe something if fine, demanding proof/evidence is not.

HouseHippo · 30-06-2009 10:49pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

What he is talking about is a cycle that happens every 11 years.

The last high point (solar maximum) was in 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
World didn't end then.
There is no evidence that the next solar maximum will be any worse.

There is no evidence that a solar flare will be caused by any alignment of anything.

It's more likely Kaku was playing it up a little while being on Fox news.

Look i have asked you countlesstimes to actualy read what I have posted before ranting on and on

I NEVER said that it had anything to do with tha alignment anyhting anything at all anywhere ever ever

HouseHippo · 30-06-2009 10:52pm

bonkey wrote: »

No, you look here.

Read the charter before posting again.

Consider yourself lucky that 6th only gave KM a warning in-thread, because that post of yours deserves a ban, but in the interests of balance, you're getting the same treatment he did.

Thats fine I have read the charter, I will behave and of course as you have pulled me up here am sure you will pull up king mob on his demanding of evidence and proof,which is not allowed under the charter

King Mob · 30-06-2009 10:53pm

HouseHippo wrote: »

Look i have asked you countlesstimes to actualy read what I have posted before ranting on and on

I NEVER said that it had anything to do with tha alignment anyhting anything at all anywhere ever ever

Not quite true.

HouseHippo wrote: »

You may be wrong there,what the theory involves is the sun's alignment with the dark rift in the milky way, which lies between Sag and Ophiuchus,the secret 13th sign of the zodiac in which Nostradamus used to predict his 2012 theory,i believe this galactic alignment only happens once in the region of 26,000 years

HouseHippo · 30-06-2009 10:55pm

and where there is the solar flares in that post e.....sorry still cant see them would you show me again

here i where i discussed solar flares

I will highlight the parts where i said the alignment was related to them

According to Michio Kaku, a well respected theoretical physicsist,there will be a massive solar flare in 2012, which could knock out our satellites and comms systems for days,months maybe even years which could have a catastrophic effect on earth as we know it

King Mob · 30-06-2009 11:00pm

HouseHippo wrote: »

and where there is the solar flares in that post e.....sorry still cant see them would you show me again

here i where i discussed solar flares

I will highlight the parts where i said the alignment was related to them

According to Michio Kaku, a well respected theoretical physicsist,there will be a massive solar flare in 2012, which could knock out our satellites and comms systems for days,months maybe even years which could have a catastrophic effect on earth as we know it

Ah there's the problem. I thought you believed that this galactic alignment would cause the solar flares.

HouseHippo · 30-06-2009 11:01pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ah there's the problem. I thought you believed that this galactic alignment would cause the solar flares.

Noooooo no no absolutely not. I realise this is a natural cycle which happens every 11 years nothing to do with the alignment

King Mob · 30-06-2009 11:06pm

HouseHippo wrote: »

Noooooo no no absolutely not. I realise this is a natural cycle which happens every 11 years nothing to do with the alignment

Then that just leaves the 26,000 year galactic alignment.
Where is this coming form?

HouseHippo · 30-06-2009 11:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

Then that just leaves the 26,000 year galactic alignment.
Where is this coming form?

I'm not going over all this again

6th · 30-06-2009 11:13pm

WakeUp wrote: »

TI respectfully suggest you have a word to kingmob aswell

HouseHippo wrote: »

am sure you will pull up king mob on his demanding

Lads, report specific posts you have a problem with. DONT tell mods how to mod in thread.

If this thread stays on these lines I'm locking it and banning people for a few days to calm them down.

HouseHippo · 30-06-2009 11:18pm

6th wrote: »

Lads, report specific posts you have a problem with. DONT tell mods how to mod in thread.

If this thread stays on these lines I'm locking it and banning people for a few days to calm them down.

Sorry 6th

30-06-2009 11:24pm

King Mob wrote: »

Then that just leaves the 26,000 year galactic alignment.
Where is this coming form?

You see, the rising location of the sun on the winter solstice is different every single year (by a few arc-seconds), this is due to the precession of Earth's axis. The sun will rise in the same place every ~26,000 years (when it has completed one precessional period). It just so happens that the rising (or setting, whatever) sun aligns "perfectly" with Ophiuchus (i.e. the location of the Milky Way's centre of rotation) around the date of the winter solstice in 2012. This process repeats itself every 26,000 years.

I'm just giving you the information: I don't believe in any of this - what I consider - nonsense.

WakeUp · 30-06-2009 11:28pm

6th wrote: »

Lads, report specific posts you have a problem with. DONT tell mods how to mod in thread.

If this thread stays on these lines I'm locking it and banning people for a few days to calm them down.

point taken.

King Mob · 30-06-2009 11:28pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You see, the rising location of the sun on the winter solstice is different every single year (by a few arc-seconds), this is due to the precession of Earth's axis. The sun will rise in the same place every ~26,000 years (when it has completed one precessional period). It just so happens that the rising (or setting, whatever) sun aligns "perfectly" with Ophiuchus (i.e. the location of the Milky Way's centre of rotation) around the date of the winter solstice in 2012. This process repeats itself every 26,000 years.

I'm just giving you the information: I don't believe in any of this - what I consider - nonsense.

But doesn't it do this every year as well? Or at least passes very close to the galactic centre?

30-06-2009 11:32pm

King Mob wrote: »

But doesn't it do this every year as well? Or at least passes very close to the galactic centre?

Well yah, it does most years (i.e. it'll rise somewhere in the region on some arbitrary day - about half of the time), but, it'll only ever rise in the "exact" location of the galactic centre on the winter solstice twice every 26,000 years.

King Mob · 30-06-2009 11:39pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well yah, it does most years (i.e. it'll rise somewhere in the region on some arbitrary day - about half of the time), but, it'll only ever rise in the "exact" location of the galactic centre on the winter solstice twice every 26,000 years.

And wouldn't that only be veiwable from certain places on the Earth?

If you look at it from a positional way (not as it appears from Earth)
wouldn't the centre of the galaxy, the Sun and the Earth line up every year?

30-06-2009 11:53pm

King Mob wrote: »

And wouldn't that only be veiwable from certain places on the Earth?

No, from everywhere (not simultaneously though, obviously) because the winter solstice isn't subject to our position on Earth; it's a phenomenon due to the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun. The winter solstice is the name we give to the date when the Earth is angled at its most towards the sun (relative to the ecliptic in the direction of the Sun), so it doesn't depend upon where we are located on Earth.

If you look at it from a positional way (not as it appears from Earth)
wouldn't the centre of the galaxy, the Sun and the Earth line up every year?

I'm not sure that they'd line up every year, but I believe that they would most years (probably over 50% of the time). The only significance of 2012 is that it is the year when the sun rises "into" the galactic centre as viewed from Earth on its shortest (or longest, depending on which hemisphere you're in) day. There is no significance to the date, it's only the date when some arbitrarily defined phenomenon occur at the same time. There's nothing more to it.

Ostrom · 01-07-2009 12:00am

http://www.stellarium.org/

King Mob · 01-07-2009 4:43am

Neil de Grasse Tyson wieghs in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJjQMwEjC1I&feature=fvst

komodosp · 03-07-2009 2:05pm

I think people are giving gravity way too much credit... So we'll be lined up with the galaxy? It's really a very weak force... And we're in orbit anyway, so we're already feeling most of the gravitational effects the galaxy has to offer...

gpjordanf1 · 03-07-2009 2:48pm

komodosp wrote: »

I think people are giving gravity way too much credit... So we'll be lined up with the galaxy? It's really a very weak force... And we're in orbit anyway, so we're already feeling most of the gravitational effects the galaxy has to offer...

isn't gravity the strongest force in the universe, black hole's at the centre of galaxy? Dont think that's weak?

King Mob · 03-07-2009 3:06pm

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

isn't gravity the strongest force in the universe, black hole's at the centre of galaxy? Dont think that's weak?

Of the four fundamental forces it is the weakest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

03-07-2009 3:18pm

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

isn't gravity the strongest force in the universe, black hole's at the centre of galaxy? Dont think that's weak?

Gravity is by far the weakest (for example the next strongest force - the weak nuclear force - is 1000000000000000000000000 times stronger). Its weakness relative to the other forces is actually one of the biggest mysteries of modern day science.

HouseHippo · 03-07-2009 3:49pm

And when the LHC kicks off we will hopefully find out the force of well...everything..can't wait

gpjordanf1 · 03-07-2009 4:17pm

thanks very interesting i alway's took gravity as the strongest with black holes being the end result.

watty · 03-07-2009 5:41pm

Compare attraction of a couple of lead balls for each other compared with a pair of rare earth magents used in earphones.

or paper for a comb (electrostatic)

Try and pull the atoms apart in a stainless steel rule or a tape measure...

The lead balls have to be huge before they have enough gravity to want to stick to each other...

Magnets strong enough you can't pull apart by hand will fit in your pocket.

03-07-2009 6:20pm

Here's another interesting way of thinking about it. If you've a piece of iron sitting on the ground, the entire Earth is gravitationally pulling on it; yet, you can pick it up with a magnet that's many many millions of times smaller than the Earth.

polishpaddy · 03-07-2009 8:59pm

I think all this is more to do with frequency than anything else your talking about.The earths is going to increase over the next few years, beginning in 2012.

2012, what's it all about?

Comments