PDA

View Full Version : A Galactic Eclipse to happen in 2012?



Tenshu
2011-Jan-03, 03:51 PM
FTR i've been keeping my nose out of any all and all Youtube videos except one I still can't seem to stop watching every few days, that being David morrison's video that debunks 2012, today when I checked the video, a commentor by the name of mikefromspace said the following about the situation.

"2012 brings a galactic eclipse. I've proven that black holes make and consume particles, all of them, causing timeflow. Time will suddenly slow for 1 hour in 2012 bringing a massive electical storm which the ancient Hindu call the Samavartaka. This guy's an idiot, he is not any real scientist. Nobody knows it all. BTW dude, the poles shift as the core is sped up again in 2019 when sun gets back it's N and S poles giving as well a solar flare to burn earth"

I'm not going to check this person's page, I know better than that. Still I do need to ask if what he's saying is correct or not, and what the heck is a Galactic Eclipse? I thought it was supposed to be Alignment.

Swift
2011-Jan-03, 04:04 PM
"2012 brings a galactic eclipse. I've proven that black holes make and consume particles, all of them, causing timeflow. Time will suddenly slow for 1 hour in 2012 bringing a massive electical storm which the ancient Hindu call the Samavartaka. This guy's an idiot, he is not any real scientist. Nobody knows it all. BTW dude, the poles shift as the core is sped up again in 2019 when sun gets back it's N and S poles giving as well a solar flare to burn earth"
I think a Galactic Eclipse is some nonsense he made up, it is meaningless words strung together, like the rest of that paragraph.

gzhpcu
2011-Jan-03, 07:16 PM
NASA mentioned this here: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1977&d=1292730535

Fast-forward to 1995. That year John Major Jenkins packaged several of these themes into Maya Cosmogenesis 2012. According to Jenkins, the winter-solstice point and the centerline of the Galaxy will line up exactly on Dec. 21. Arguing that this motivated the Maya to contrive the calendar to end on that date, Jenkins concludes that it will be "a tremendous transformation and opportunity for spiritual growth, a transition from one world age to another."

In fact, astronomy cannot pinpoint such a "galactic alignment" to within a year, much less a day. The alignment depends on the rather arbitrary modern definition of the galactic equator, and/or the visual appearance of the Milky Way. There is no precise definition of the Milky Way's edges -- they are very vague and depend on the clarity of your view. (Jenkins says that he personally established the Milky Way’s edges by viewing it from 11,000 feet, far above anywhere the Maya lived.) So to give a precise visual position for its centerline is not meaningful.

Jenkins did acknowledge that the winter-solstice Sun actually crosses the center of the Milky Way anytime between 1980 and 2016. Elsewhere he expands this approach zone to a 900-year period, and settles for an imprecise alignment to which Dec. 21, 2012, is arbitrarily and circularly assigned. Real astronomy does not support any match between the Baktun-13 end date and a galactic alignment. The advocates both admit and ignore this discrepancy.

It's almost a sidelight that the winter-solstice sun will never actually "eclipse" the galaxy's true center, the pointlike radio source marking the Milky Way's central black hole. Moreover, the winter-solstice sun won’t even pass closest to it on the sky for another 200 years. What did the Maya themselves think about End Times? There is no evidence that they saw the calendar and a world age ending in either transcendence or catastrophe on December 21, 2012. Some Maya Long Count texts refer to dates many baktuns past 13 and even into the next pictun and beyond. For instance, an inscription commissioned in the 7th century A.D. by King Pacal of Palenque predicts that an anniversary of his accession would be commemorated on Oct. 15, 4772.

Swift
2011-Jan-03, 07:19 PM
For instance, an inscription commissioned in the 7th century A.D. by King Pacal of Palenque predicts that an anniversary of his accession would be commemorated on Oct. 15, 4772.

I'm planning a big party myself. :D

Glom
2011-Jan-03, 07:33 PM
How can there be an eclipse of something not in the ecliptic?

Space Chimp
2011-Jan-03, 07:59 PM
How can there be an eclipse of something not in the ecliptic?

There are those scammers out there who find a little astronomical word salad is just enough to pass off a dodgy theory.

GoneToPlaid
2011-Jan-04, 03:19 PM
I only get one extra hour of time for all of the year 2012? That mikefromspace guy probably is the same nut who said that our coffee makers and microwave ovens would blow up on Jan 1st, 2000 due to the Millennium Bug. I set up numerous Roach Motels throughout my house on Dec 31st, 1999 in order to assure that I would catch the Millennium Bug before it could damage my electronics. Hehe.

JustAFriend
2011-Jan-05, 02:57 AM
"2012 brings a galactic eclipse. I've proven that black holes make and consume particles, all of them, causing timeflow. Time will suddenly slow for 1 hour in 2012 bringing a massive electical storm which the ancient Hindu call the Samavartaka. This guy's an idiot, he is not any real scientist. Nobody knows it all. BTW dude, the poles shift as the core is sped up again in 2019 when sun gets back it's N and S poles giving as well a solar flare to burn earth"

I can make up stuff too, but I'd try to at least make it a little believable...

vonmazur
2011-Jan-05, 06:00 AM
"Samavartaka" ?? My guru in the 60's never told me that!! :)

Dale

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-27, 10:10 PM
Hi! I'm a newbie here, so I hope that I'm not breaking some protocol by blundering into the "galactic alignment" discussion. I'd like to point out that it seems to me to be extremely difficult to say that a galactic alignment will or will not, occur on 12/21/2012 - for the following reasons: (1.) In the simplist terms, we are all simply standing in our earthly backyards, looking up at the little points of light that we call "stars". Let's focus on just one star - say it's Proxima Centauri, which is 4.2 light years away from Earth. Since that pinpoint of light that represents Proxima Centauri is traveling across space at the speed of light, and nothing can travel faster, we really don't know that Proxima Centauri still exists at the present moment! For instance, it might have gone nova 4.1 years ago - completely disappearing from the universe - and we won't know that physical fact until it's last glimmer of starlight disappears from the sky over earth, a few weeks from today. (2.) Using the same reasoning, huge pieces of the panarama of the ancient points of light above our earthly skies, very well may have changed since the day those points of light set out on their long, long journey to the eyepiece of our earthly telescope. Right now today they might be arranged in entirely different formations and constellations - since millions and millions of years has passed since they were last in the positions that we see them in today, in the sky over earth. Why, the Milky Way galaxy alone, contains some four billion stars and is 100,000 light years in diameter, which means that the light from a distant star all the way across the disc of the Milky Way from earth, has been journeying toward us for 100,000 years! Who knows the physical condition and location of that far-distant star, today? For after all - we are seeing an ancient, ancient stationary picture of a constantly-changing galaxy controlled by forces that we barely understand. Given all that, is it not possible then, that an imaginary line drawn on 12/21/2012 from earth, through the Sun and on out into space, will intersect with some point or object in outer space? Of course! Might that point or object be the center of the Milky Way Galaxy? Possibly - we simply don't have enough data to make a guess. But I posit for you that - if such an intersection were to occur, then John Major Jenkins would be correct, would he not? And an ancient prophecy would be fulfilled. Hey! I'm just say'n, you know? Just say'n!

Daggerstab
2011-Jan-28, 09:04 AM
Welcome to BAUT. Please read Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/86593-Advice-for-Conspiracy-Theory-Supporters) and the Rules For Posting To This Board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/32864-Rules-For-Posting-To-This-Board)

About the "alignment": Since the speed of light is a constant, and since the distance to the center of the galaxy and its movement relative to the Solar System can be determined, it is relatively easy to calculate where it would be in 2012. The burden of proof is on Jenkins (and you, since you are trying to support his claims) to show that an "alignment" will happen.

http://www.2012hoax.org/solstice-alignment

An 'exact' alignment isn't possible, because the center of the Galaxy is not in the plane of the Earth’s orbit. It’s off by about 5 and 1/2 degrees. As a comparison, the disk of the sun is about 1/2 a degree across. This means that the sun will be 11 times its own diameter away from a line through the center of the galaxy on December 21, 2012.
(emphasis in the original)

"Just say'n" is (not) a cop-out. You either stand behind your words, or you don't. Which is it?

eburacum45
2011-Jan-28, 12:30 PM
We do have a very good idea of the proper motion of most of the stars in the sky, so we know almost exactly where they will be in 2012 (so exactly that no telescope could tell the difference between the predicted location and the actual location.) Also I should point out that Proxima Centauri is the sort of star that will never explode, so we know with a very degree of confidence that it will still be there in 2013. There is no significant alignment in 2012.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jan-28, 12:57 PM
..we simply don't have enough data to make a guess.
We? Maybe you, and people you interact with don't, but there is plenty of data out there.

I don't have it, but I know from what I've learned about science, I how it was derived. And; I see plenty of evidence that it exists through studies that have predicted events that have happened, and from snippets of that data.

Way back in Newton's time, we learned how these objects move and Einstein helped us learn how to make it more precise. From these concepts weve learned lifetimes of stars, how they change over that lifetime, and what happens when then (loosely put) burn out.

We know the probability of major astral events to know the probabilities of objects still existing. So; maybe a star here and there don't exist, but when you expand it to the scale of the galaxy, the probablilities keep any considerable change down to zero.

This works in reverse too. Since the movement is so predictable, we know what the constellations look like in ancient times.

Also; the matter from Novas do not disappear. It's still there. It's much more widely scattered, but on a Galactic scale, it's effect is also insignificant.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jan-28, 02:48 PM
2012 brings a galactic eclipse. I've proven that black holes make and consume particles, all of them, causing timeflow. Time will suddenly slow for 1 hour in 2012 bringing a massive electical storm which the ancient Hindu call the Samavartaka. This guy's an idiot, he is not any real scientist. Nobody knows it all. BTW dude, the poles shift as the core is sped up again in 2019 when sun gets back it's N and S poles giving as well a solar flare to burn earth

No, I can't take this guy seriously. He used an apostrophe in the possessive form of "its"!

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-28, 05:37 PM
Of course I stand behind my words! I'm sorry that I didn't make them more clear and I apologize for that. My point is - given the speed of light and the great distances involved, we cannot be sure that ANYTHING exists out there at this moment - let alone where the center of it may be - because our only source of discussion - our "universe of discourse" - is the ancient patterns of starlight in the skies above Earth - starlight that has been streaming at us for many years. Our only confidence that they still exist is that they have "always existed", but that describes only the five or six thousand years of human history here on earth. You MUST accept the fact that the source of those points of light might well have disappeared from the sky for some unknown reason, and we just don't realize it because we are seeing the ancient light that has been coming at us for thousands of years. Behind it may be nothing at all. Do you think that improbable? Everything about our Universe is improbable! For instance, there are an estimated Four-hundred BILLION stars in the Milky way - an estimated One Trillion stars in the Andromeda galaxy; the Milky Way galaxy is an estimated 100,000 light years in diameter. That means that the light from stars on the far side of our home galaxy started their journey 100,000 years ago! Therefore, we can only know the PROBABLE position of the center of the galaxy - IF the Milky Way actually still exists at this moment in time. It is entirely possible that all the stars in the galaxy disappeared long ago - simply vanished - just winked out - and we are entirely alone in the Universe. (Please note that the probability of the Universe having disappeared is exactly the same as the Universe appearing. After all, we have no idea how it got here; if it disappeared suddenly we would have no idea of how that happened, either! Given that, how can anyone know that there is anything out there with which to "align" with? The kernal of my argument is, that we simply don't know whether an alignment will occur, or not!

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-28, 05:55 PM
I'm sorry - I guess that I wasn't clear in my posting! Sir or Madam, please go back and read your words again! Did you really mean it when you said "we do have a VERY good idea of the PROPER MOTION OF MOST OF THE STARS IN THE SKY..."? MOST OF THE STARS IN THE SKY? For pity sake! We (the human race) hardly have an idea of how our own Sun moves - let alone the motion of the multi-trillion suns out there in our telescopes! And you seem to believe that we have a VERY good idea of the PROPER motion of MOST of the stars in the sky?
Sir or Madam - you exhibit a marvelous and unquestioning confidence in "current science" that borders on effrontery! Please go back and re-read my original posting - I'm telling you that the light that you see in your telescope of all those twinkling lights in the night sky, that light began their individual journeys from each of their sources at the least - 4.2 years ago (Proxima Centauri - the closest star) at the most - tens of tens of thousands of years ago. The picture of the Milky Way galaxy that we have in the eyepieces of our telescopes is ANCIENT! Most of it was formed hundreds of thousands of years ago! You and I have NO IDEA of what that pattern of stars looks like at this instant - in fact, it may have completely disappeared! How could it have disappeared? How did it come to be in the first place? If you tell me the last, I will tell you the first. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me!

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jan-28, 06:53 PM
The Wiseman, what you're saying is not exactly news. I think most of us here are very well aware that we are seeing the stars as they were. The fact is, scientists have actually allowed for the fact that they are effectively seeing into the past.

Strange
2011-Jan-28, 07:11 PM
Our only confidence that they still exist is that they have "always existed", but that describes only the five or six thousand years of human history here on earth. You MUST accept the fact that the source of those points of light might well have disappeared from the sky for some unknown reason, and we just don't realize it because we are seeing the ancient light that has been coming at us for thousands of years.

I suppose they might have all disappeared in the last few minutes. I suppose it is possible my dining table is about to turn into an aardvark. It is possible I will win the lottery. It is possible you are a figment of my imagination.

On the other hand, we could assume a certain amount of continuity in the universe. It makes everything we do (science and everything else) pretty pointless otherwise. You can't make any progress or predictions on this basis. No point going to work because I might not get paid. And I might find $10,000 on the street, so why work. No point getting dressed because my clothes might just dissolve in the rain....


Please note that the probability of the Universe having disappeared is exactly the same as the Universe appearing.

Not very helful as we have no idea of the probability of the universe appearing. In fact, it could be argued that because the universe exists, the probability of it appearing is 100% in which case, by your logic, it must have already ceased to exist. So you are a figment of my imagination after all.


The kernal of my argument is, that we simply don't know whether an alignment will occur, or not!

I think we do...

NEOWatcher
2011-Jan-28, 07:21 PM
...You and I have NO IDEA of what that pattern of stars looks like at this instant - in fact, it may have completely disappeared! How could it have disappeared?
You tell me how it could have disappeared...

The average life of a star in the Galaxy is 6.3 billion years. The average distance 50,000ly. So I can say with confidence that I know where about 99.9992% of them are.

sts60
2011-Jan-28, 07:43 PM
I'm sorry - I guess that I wasn't clear in my posting! Sir or Madam, please go back and read your words again! Did you really mean it when you said "we do have a VERY good idea of the PROPER MOTION OF MOST OF THE STARS IN THE SKY..."? MOST OF THE STARS IN THE SKY? For pity sake! We (the human race) hardly have an idea of how our own Sun moves - let alone the motion of the multi-trillion suns out there in our telescopes! And you seem to believe that we have a VERY good idea of the PROPER motion of MOST of the stars in the sky?
Proper motion is the apparent angular motion of the stars across the sky. It is a vector quantity described by an angular speed (typically seconds of arc per year) and a direction relative to the north celestial pole).

And, yes, we do have a very good idea of the proper motion of most stars; it's directly observable. And it's very small for most stars. The further away the star, generally speaking, the smaller the proper motion, regardless of its space velocity relative to the Sun.

I cannot understand why you would say we "hardly have an idea of how our own Sun moves". We've been studying that quite a while. We know its motion relative to the Earth extremely well; we even have a solid idea of its motion around the center of our own galaxy.


Sir or Madam - you exhibit a marvelous and unquestioning confidence in "current science" that borders on effrontery!

That's quite a judgment to make while you're simply waving away all of stellar and galactic astronomy and astrophysics.


Please go back and re-read my original posting - I'm telling you that the light that you see in your telescope of all those twinkling lights in the night sky, that light began their individual journeys from each of their sources at the least - 4.2 years ago (Proxima Centauri - the closest star) at the most - tens of tens of thousands of years ago. The picture of the Milky Way galaxy that we have in the eyepieces of our telescopes is ANCIENT! Most of it was formed hundreds of thousands of years ago! You and I have NO IDEA of what that pattern of stars looks like at this instant - in fact, it may have completely disappeared! How could it have disappeared? How did it come to be in the first place? If you tell me the last, I will tell you the first. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me!

First of all, stars don't just randomly disappear. They age, they change, and they inflate or explode, shrink and cool, or collapse in reasonably predictable ways according to their age and size. This knowledge we have won by many decades of intense study.

Second of all, we have a very good idea of that the pattern of stars we can observe looked like at any point in human history, give or take a supernova here and there. Stars don't just abruptly shift their direction randomly. Our galaxy, viewed from another, will look very much the same a thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand years from now, and we can say this because we have observed that such entities don't randomly and suddenly change in unpredictable ways.

It's not our hubris telling us this. It's Nature, and she doesn't lie to us. We certainly don't understand everything about, say, galactic evolution, or stellar dynamics. But we know enough to confidently dispense with the rabbit-out-of-the-hat notions of those who claim 2012 is going to be some big transformation because of the rough direction of the galactic center or some such nonsense.

eburacum45
2011-Jan-28, 09:17 PM
How could it have disappeared? How did it come to be in the first place? If you tell me the last, I will tell you the first. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me!Since the Universe has not disappeared yet in the last 13.7 billion years, I am willing to predict that it won't disappear in the next year or so. No stars have been observed disappearing at random; all stars follow their paths of proper motion without random deviation (at least not on any scale we can observe).

So the ideas of a sudden and unexpected galactic alignment or untoward disappearances are both nonsense, I'm afraid.

Van Rijn
2011-Jan-28, 09:17 PM
But I posit for you that - if such an intersection were to occur, then John Major Jenkins would be correct, would he not?


Correct about what? What's the specific claim?

Also, you seem to be arguing for something we can't detect, so how would we ever know?



And an ancient prophecy would be fulfilled.


What ancient prophecy? Could you detail it please? Can you provide references to reports by professional archeologists or historians that discuss it?

MaDeR
2011-Jan-28, 09:29 PM
Dear Wiseman, our so-called Reality, where we all exist, is a little more persistent. When you will turn back from computer, it will still be here. No, really.

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-28, 10:39 PM
"First of all, stars don't just randomly disappear. They age, they change, and they inflate or explode, shrink and cool, or collapse in reasonably predictable ways according to their age and size. This knowledge we have won by many decades of intense study."

Dear sts60: There are 400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. There are over a trillion stars in the neighboring galaxy of Andromeda. There are estimates of a billion galaxies in the Universe, and just this past June (2010), a group of Harvard scientists announced that they believed that there might actually be THREE TIMES MORE STARS IN THE UNIVERSE THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.
Given that, how can you make categorical statements such as "...stars don't just randomly disappear..." when until very recently (150 years) the human race with the naked eye could observe only about 3,200 stars from Earth? Why, we don't even know enough about stars to properly categorize them, let alone make strong statements about how they may act in various situations. For instance, no human observer has ever seen a star being born! We have seen stars "go nova" only because the big flareup announcing the death of a star draws attention to it. But even then - we have only observed the deaths of less than 1,000 stars in total.
The following is from Wikipedia's "Nova" listing: "Astronomers estimate that the Milky Way experiences roughly 30 to 60 novae per year, with a likely rate of about 40.[1] The number of novae discovered in the Milky Way each year is much lower, about 10.[6] Roughly 25 novae brighter than about magnitude 20 are discovered in the Andromeda Galaxy each year and smaller numbers are seen in other nearby galaxies.[7]
My dear sts60, a sample of less than 1,000 out of at least trillions of stars is hardly definitive - and hardly enough to make strong statements like you do about things of which you can't even dream! Why, there may in this fantastic universe, be many more entities, objects, forces and figures surpassing the stars that we can't even imagine today. Hamlet's response to Horatio's announcement of seeing the senior Hamlet's ghost on the battlements of Elsinore castle was; "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." So is my advice to you, my Friend!

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-28, 11:14 PM
"
Since the Universe has not disappeared yet in the last 13.7 billion years, I am willing to predict that it won't disappear in the next year or so. No stars have been observed disappearing at random; all stars follow their paths of proper motion without random deviation (at least not on any scale we can observe)."

Are you familiar with Nassim Nicholas Taleb's recent book "THE BLACK SWAN"? In this seminal work the author describes real world and theoretical disasters that come about completely without warning, and describes the inability of man to predict almost anything very far into the future, because of the many, many variables. He describes a hurricane in Europe being initiated three years prior by a butterfly moving it's wings on a branch in a tree in the Amazon forest of South America - the tiny air currents being fortuitously amplified by (seeming) random events in the atmosphere that culminate in massive force years later. So go our human lives. Shakespeare's "MacBeth" is built around the unbelievable obscure prophecies of the three witches that somehow, all come true at the end of the Play; i.e., MacBeth's kingdom will continue 'till "Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane" (it does), he can only be killed by someone "not born of woman" (yet he is), etc. Indeed my friend, we may be seeing a true "Black Swan" event being played out in the streets of Egypt, Yemen, Tunesia, Jordan and other middle east nations that will see gasoline at $10/gallon this coming Summer. I'm sure that you - with your knowledge of the workings of a Universe of trillions of stars -would have predicted something like $3.50/gallon just a few days ago. So much for your "prediction" that the Universe won't be disappearing in the next year or so - neither prediction is within your puny powers, nor do you have access to the Big Picture. That great newspaperman (and legendary drunk) H. Allen Smith once famously said: "If a man comes up to you with a deck of cards and bets you $100 that the Joker will jump out of the deck in the next five minutes and squirt cider in your ear, don't bet him. Because just as sure as God made little green apples - you're gonna have an ear full of cider and your hundred dollars will be gone." Don't predict anything, young fellow! You know not what you are dealing with.

JeffD1
2011-Jan-28, 11:20 PM
I have always been intrigued by the 'our sun will align with the galactic center' bluster.

Are not two points always technically 'in line' ?

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-28, 11:30 PM
... our so-called Reality, where we all exist, is a little more persistent. When you will turn back from computer, it will still be here. No, really...

Dear MaDeR:
Next time you go to the store, try driving down the street using only your rear view mirror. What you see in it is all you really know about the world, because you have directly experienced it and it is now in your past and stationary. What you would see if you look out the windshield at that time has not yet played itself out, has not been experienced by you, therefore, you can only conjecture about it - that's why the past seems so attractive, and the future scary. A rational person will realize the enormous number of possibilities that might happen in even the near future.

Do you know of "Plato's Cave" my Friend? Here it is described by Socrates (from Wikipedia):
A group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire that is burning behind them, and the people begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not constitutive of reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners

Why, how can we predict the future when none of us can say for sure that we will even live to the morning. I worked in the World Trade Center for several years - every day I walked into those big elevators at 8:30 am and was wisked to the 32nd floor of Tower Two - never thinking that in just a few short years, some of the folks with who I worked would find themselves covered in jet fuel and burned to death in that very elevator at that same time of day. Just because today looks a lot like yesterday, does'nt mean that the things of yesterday are guaranteed to happen.
What were you predicting, just a moment ago? Something about a computer....

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-28, 11:48 PM
Dear Van Rijn:


Correct about what? What's the specific claim?

The specific claim made by John Major Jenkins - that the galactic center would be aligned with the earth, and that direct path would be - for the first time in 26,000 years - eclipsed by our Sun.


Also, you seem to be arguing for something we can't detect, so how would we ever know?

Jenkins and others posit that - over the 26,000 years that Earth has had a direct view of the Center of the Milky Way galaxy - that some "life force" or "nurturing force" has been eminating from that Center. He and others conjecture that - on 12/21/2012 - that "force" will be interrupted, with unforseen consequences. (or, perhaps no consequences at all). Assuming that the consequences of "losing the lifeline" for a few hours is catastrophic, that is "how would we ever know!"

I have no skin in that game - my point is that I am only refuting those misguided souls who say categorically that "the Earth will not be directly aligned with the center of the Milky Way galaxy on 12/21/2012". My problem with them is that they speak as if they KNOW that a galactic alignment won't take place.

Horsefeathers! NO ONE KNOWS!

My position is that no one can point to the Center of the Milky Way (four-hundred billion stars; 100,000 light years across!) because the picture we have of everything that we can see outside of our solar system is way, way outdated due to the enormous distances that light must cross and the time that would take; because of this, we cannot know whether or not, our Sun will eclipse our direct view of the Center on that date. If - however - the results on that day are catastrophic - we can opine that yes, Jenkins was right, and we were indeed, cut off from that "life force"; as a result of the catastrophy, a galactic alignment was proven to have taken place.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

kleindoofy
2011-Jan-29, 12:21 AM
YouTube comments. A fount of wisdom.


No, I can't take this guy seriously. He used an apostrophe in the possessive form of "its"!
Not only that, he changes from the third to the second person in addressing his subject:


This guy's an idiot, he is not any real scientist. .... BTW dude, ...
In Vino Veritas was yesterday. In modern times one's true self is expressed in YouTube comments.

Luckmeister
2011-Jan-29, 05:48 AM
My position is that no one can point to the Center of the Milky Way (four-hundred billion stars; 100,000 light years across!) because the picture we have of everything that we can see outside of our solar system is way, way outdated due to the enormous distances that light must cross and the time that would take; because of this, we cannot know whether or not, our Sun will eclipse our direct view of the Center on that date. If - however - the results on that day are catastrophic - we can opine that yes, Jenkins was right, and we were indeed, cut off from that "life force"; as a result of the catastrophy, a galactic alignment was proven to have taken place.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

Yes, as we look to the galactic center, we see it as it was when the photons left and it is now in another location. Since you think something from that location is now having an effect on us, that effect must be instantaneous, defying the speed of light.

I'd like you to explain how you think this "life force" has that ability.

Cavorite
2011-Jan-29, 05:50 AM
The specific claim made by John Major Jenkins - that the galactic center would be aligned with the earth, and that direct path would be - for the first time in 26,000 years - eclipsed by our Sun.

All you've given us in support of the notion this is possible is some handwaving about how we can't really know anything. People have gone into some considerable detail showing that we do in fact know a great deal about how the universe has consistently behaved in all observable cases. Note the word "consistently". While nobody can, of course, completely eliminate the possibility that (eg) the moon might really turn into green cheese next Tuesday, any pragmatic approach to understanding the universe accepts that the overwhelming consistency of observations over the preceding decades, centuries and millennia can be used as a model to be getting on with. (Please don't leap on the word "model" to kick off another refrain of "not real". What's Jenkins' model? Why is it subject to different standards of proof?)

Many of your specific examples of how things might dramatically change have been shown to be as close to impossible as you care to call it. For example, Proxima Centauri can not ever, ever go nova. We know quite a bit about novae, and quite a bit about red dwarfs. They simply cannot do what you suggest. It's pretty much the same situation as if I said that our knowledge of anatomy demonstrates that men cannot ever conceive and give birth. Sure, you can still repeat the philosophy undergraduate refrain of "but we don't know that", but the vast majority of people will just roll their eyes at that point. It's such a well established fact that to claim otherwise pretty much demands that you provide a sufficiently good reason for doing so. Handwaving in the face of a mountain of evidence isn't being iconoclastic or free thinking, it's being obtuse.

It's been pointed out that the sun is way, way off beam from the galactic centre, no matter where it might precisely be to the nth decimal place. It's so far away that the error bars on the movement of all the stars will make no difference whatsoever. To use another analogy, I might not be able to predict with sub-millimeter accuracy where a hit baseball will land, but I can be darn well sure that it's not going to hit someone in a different city.

I'm also curious as to why you make such a big deal out of the supposed inability of science to make statements about anything (backed up with copious reams of evidence as to why those statements are believed with a very high degree of certainty), and yet you seem willing to believe that "prophecy" is capable of doing what science cannot (regardless of the fact that no testable evidence to give credence to the claim is provided). Isn't that a double standard?

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jan-29, 08:45 AM
Wiseman, are you aware that you are repeatedly telling us the same things that most of us will have known for a very long time?

Are you aware that you sound as if you are quoting stuff you don't really understand? For instance:


Why, the Milky Way galaxy alone, contains some four billion stars and is 100,000 light years in diameter, which means that the light from a distant star all the way across the disc of the Milky Way from earth, has been journeying toward us for 100,000 years!

No it hasn't. For that to be true, we would have to be at the edge of the Milky Way. We are not. We are about 33,000 light years from the centre. You obviously didn't know that, but you are happy to preach to those who do.

You quote Shakespeare, Plato and the events of 9/11 - all very familiar to a large number of people here - as if it backed up your shouted statements. Again, I think everybody here is aware that a) random acts of violence happen sometimes, b) there's more to the world than we can see with our senses and c) we don't know everything, and so things will happen which surprise us in a big way.

But for the last of these, I quote Dara O'Briain, who put it brilliantly:


science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop. . . . Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

He was talking specifically about homeopaths, but it sums up your posts rather well, Wiseman: starlight is many years old, therefore the information we gather from it is old, therefore we can't rely on anything, therefore there's a good chance that a completely baseless word salad about galactic eclipses might turn out to be correct.

Peter B
2011-Jan-29, 10:29 AM
I have always been intrigued by the 'our sun will align with the galactic center' bluster.

Are not two points always technically 'in line' ?

That's what I thought, too.

Wiseman, would you care to respond in the context of John Major Jenkins's claims, please.

Swift
2011-Jan-29, 03:44 PM
It's such a well established fact that to claim otherwise pretty much demands that you provide a sufficiently good reason for doing so. Handwaving in the face of a mountain of evidence isn't being iconoclastic or free thinking, it's being obtuse.
The Wiseman,

Let me make that official.

If you have not done so already, I strongly urge that you review Our Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/86593-Advice-for-Conspiracy-Theory-Supporters) and the rules for this board, which are linked there. Among other things, they require that you, as an advocate of a non-mainstream idea, defend your idea with something more than handwaving and to answer direct questions put to you (there are several already). Failure to do so may result in infractions, suspensions, or even banning.

I let things slide for a bit, but it is time you started following these rules. Consider that a warning.

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-29, 04:51 PM
Yes, as we look to the galactic center, we see it as it was when the photons left and it is now in another location. Since you think something from that location is now having an effect on us, that effect must be instantaneous, defying the speed of light.

I'd like you to explain how you think this "life force" has that ability.


Dear Luckmeister:

If such a "life force" does exist, it has been continuously streaming from the galactic center to Earth since the beginning, interrupted every 26,000 years by this pesky eclipse of that view of the center by our Sun. Perhaps this 26,000 year recurring interruption might the reason for the demise of the dinosaurs, Noah's Flood, continental movements, ice ages et al - those mysterious wipe outs of civilizations, mountain ranges and entire species - that litter our geographic past. I have no idea - this streaming "life force" from the galactic center could, of course, travel at the speed of light, since it is presumed to have been a product of the galactic center since the beginning of the Milky Way galaxy.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I hope that I have answered your question.

JeffD1
2011-Jan-29, 04:56 PM
I have no skin in that game - my point is that I am only refuting those misguided souls who say categorically that "the Earth will not be directly aligned with the center of the Milky Way galaxy on 12/21/2012". My problem with them is that they speak as if they KNOW that a galactic alignment won't take place.

Horsefeathers! NO ONE KNOWS!
.

Arguement from ignorance. The claim is that we don't know and thus you substitute your own speculation.

eburacum45
2011-Jan-29, 05:40 PM
My position is that no one can point to the Center of the Milky Way (four-hundred billion stars; 100,000 light years across!) because the picture we have of everything that we can see outside of our solar system is way, way outdated due to the enormous distances that light must cross and the time that would take; because of this, we cannot know whether or not, our Sun will eclipse our direct view of the Center on that date. If - however - the results on that day are catastrophic - we can opine that yes, Jenkins was right, and we were indeed, cut off from that "life force"; as a result of the catastrophy, a galactic alignment was proven to have taken place.

Most estimates of the location of the centre of the galaxy place it several degrees away from the location of the Sun on 21/12/11. In particular the location of Sagitarius A*, the black hole near the centre of the galaxy is well-known, and the Keplerian orbit of that black hole around the gravitational centre of the Galaxy is also well known. This allows the gravitational centre to be located quite precisely. Note as well that the location of this centre will be more or less constant, so even allowing for 33,000 years of galactic drift it could not possibly be behind the Sun on 21/12/11.

However even if it were true that the exact point in the sky which will be directly behind the Sun on that date does turn out to be (by a massive coincidence) the location of the 'centre of the galaxy' (whatever you might understand that to be) please note that the Sun is not a single point in the sky, but instead a disk 30 arcminutes across. This means that the hypothetical point you refer to has also been eclipsed by the disk of the Sun for several days running at the time of the Solstice in 2010, 2009, and for several years before that.

sts60
2011-Jan-29, 05:46 PM
Dear sts60: There are 400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. There are over a trillion stars in the neighboring galaxy of Andromeda. There are estimates of a billion galaxies in the Universe, and just this past June (2010), a group of Harvard scientists announced that they believed that there might actually be THREE TIMES MORE STARS IN THE UNIVERSE THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.
Given that, how can you make categorical statements such as "...stars don't just randomly disappear..." when until very recently (150 years) the human race with the naked eye could observe only about 3,200 stars from Earth?

First of all, under dark-sky conditions the naked-eye limit is closer to ten thousand stars, so you're off by a factor of 3. Second, we've been observing the heavens with telescopes for several centuries, and I have no idea where you came up with "150 years".

But much more importantly, the reason I can make such a statement is that in all that time, stars simply don't just disappear for no apparent reason. That's not a bald assertion of fact; it's the nature of things, as best we can tell. That does not mean that there may be some entirely new facet of stellar behavior, some entirely new law of physics, which may suddenly show itself - but there is no evidence for such a thing when it comes to such stellar now-you-see-it-now-you-don't claims. You're simply waving your hands and saying because we don't know everything about the Universe, we can't make claims about how things work with any confidence. That's simply not correct, and it's very presumptuous of you to say so; it's the equivalent of saying that nobody knows more than you do about the subject. That, in fact, is an insult to many smart people who have devoted their careers to understanding the Universe.


Why, we don't even know enough about stars to properly categorize them, let alone make strong statements about how they may act in various situations. For instance, no human observer has ever seen a star being born! We have seen stars "go nova" only because the big flareup announcing the death of a star draws attention to it. But even then - we have only observed the deaths of less than 1,000 stars in total.
The following is from Wikipedia's "Nova" listing: ...

Your claim about not being able to categorize stars is flat wrong, and we in fact can predict the evolution of stars with reasonable confidence based on a tremendous amount of physical and empirical data. And I don't need Wikipedia quoted at me; I have a degree in space physics, so I have some appreciation for the kind of work that has gone into obtaining this understanding.


My dear sts60, a sample of less than 1,000 out of at least trillions of stars is hardly definitive - and hardly enough to make strong statements like you do about things of which you can't even dream! Why, there may in this fantastic universe...

There may be invisible pink space unicorns, which individually scatter stars every which way when spooked. When you can provide some basis for believing that other than handwaving appeals to magic, than your claims will merit more attention. Right now, all you've demonstrated is that in your enthusiasm for wanting to believe anything is possible, you have overlooked things we know are possible and do in fact happen in certain ways unless and until evidence to the contrary appears. "We could be wrong because we don't know everything" isn't much of an argument, especially when you evidently don't understand what (or why) we do know.

Strange
2011-Jan-29, 05:52 PM
However even if it were true that the exact point in the sky which will be directly behind the Sun on that date does turn out to be (by a massive coincidence) the location of the 'centre of the galaxy' (whatever you might understand that to be) please note that the Sun is not a single point in the sky, but instead a disk 30 arcminutes across. This means that the hypothetical point you refer to has also been eclipsed by the disk of the Sun for several days running at the time of the Solstice in 2010, 2009, and for several years before that.

And even if it did happen: so what? Why would that coincidental alignment make any difference. The gravitational effect of the "center of the galaxy" is minute so even added to the Sun it won't make any difference. The Sun and the Moon frequently align, which has a far more significant effect, and - guess what - nothing disastrous happens. So why is this mythical alignment so important to you?

tsig
2011-Jan-29, 06:54 PM
delete wrong button

tsig
2011-Jan-29, 06:57 PM
"

Are you familiar with Nassim Nicholas Taleb's recent book "THE BLACK SWAN"? In this seminal work the author describes real world and theoretical disasters that come about completely without warning, and describes the inability of man to predict almost anything very far into the future, because of the many, many variables. He describes a hurricane in Europe being initiated three years prior by a butterfly moving it's wings on a branch in a tree in the Amazon forest of South America - the tiny air currents being fortuitously amplified by (seeming) random events in the atmosphere that culminate in massive force years later. So go our human lives. Shakespeare's "MacBeth" is built around the unbelievable obscure prophecies of the three witches that somehow, all come true at the end of the Play; i.e., MacBeth's kingdom will continue 'till "Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane" (it does), he can only be killed by someone "not born of woman" (yet he is), etc. Indeed my friend, we may be seeing a true "Black Swan" event being played out in the streets of Egypt, Yemen, Tunesia, Jordan and other middle east nations that will see gasoline at $10/gallon this coming Summer. I'm sure that you - with your knowledge of the workings of a Universe of trillions of stars -would have predicted something like $3.50/gallon just a few days ago. So much for your "prediction" that the Universe won't be disappearing in the next year or so - neither prediction is within your puny powers, nor do you have access to the Big Picture. That great newspaperman (and legendary drunk) H. Allen Smith once famously said: "If a man comes up to you with a deck of cards and bets you $100 that the Joker will jump out of the deck in the next five minutes and squirt cider in your ear, don't bet him. Because just as sure as God made little green apples - you're gonna have an ear full of cider and your hundred dollars will be gone." Don't predict anything, young fellow! You know not what you are dealing with.

You should follow your own advice.

Strange
2011-Jan-29, 07:06 PM
He describes a hurricane in Europe being initiated three years prior by a butterfly moving it's wings on a branch in a tree in the Amazon forest of South America - the tiny air currents being fortuitously amplified by (seeming) random events in the atmosphere that culminate in massive force years later.

If he does say that then he is a misguided fool. I am more inclined to think you have either misunderstood him or are misrepresenting him.


Shakespeare's "MacBeth" ...

How does a work of fiction support any sort of "scientific" argument? (Not that this is a very scientific argument)


You know not what you are dealing with.

What are we dealing with?

Your position is about as useful as saying that the universe was created 5 minutes ago but made to appear billions of years old and could disappear again just as quickly. If predicting anything were in fact futile, we wouldn't have any of the technology you see around you. We would be huddled in caves in despair, not knowing what nightmarish things might happen next.

Van Rijn
2011-Jan-29, 11:16 PM
Dear Luckmeister:

If such a "life force" does exist, it has been continuously streaming from the galactic center to Earth since the beginning, interrupted every 26,000 years by this pesky eclipse of that view of the center by our Sun. Perhaps this 26,000 year recurring interruption might the reason for the demise of the dinosaurs, Noah's Flood, continental movements, ice ages et al - those mysterious wipe outs of civilizations, mountain ranges and entire species - that litter our geographic past.


Noah's flood? There is no evidence for a world-wide flood, if that's what you're claiming. Real floods occur, but they have known physical causes. The other things as well are explainable by known physical causes. Please explain why this "life force" idea would better fit the evidence than known physical processes.


I have no idea - this streaming "life force" from the galactic center could, of course, travel at the speed of light, since it is presumed to have been a product of the galactic center since the beginning of the Milky Way galaxy.


What is the evidence for 'streaming "life force"'? Why is it presumed to be a product of the galactic center? What is the evidence that the sun can block "life force"? How has this been tested and measured?

Van Rijn
2011-Jan-29, 11:35 PM
If such a "life force" does exist, it has been continuously streaming from the galactic center to Earth since the beginning, interrupted every 26,000 years by this pesky eclipse of that view of the center by our Sun.


In addition, do you or Jenkins have a detailed model showing how this 26,000 year eclipse cycle is supposed to work? I don't see how it could work physically.

captain swoop
2011-Jan-30, 12:26 AM
continental movements

They are moving now. As you read this the ground you are on is moving across the globe, it can be measured. Read up on Plate techtonics.

Gillianren
2011-Jan-30, 03:17 AM
Or tectonics. (Note that I seldom correct spelling unasked; this time, it mattered.)

JeffD1
2011-Jan-30, 04:14 AM
............. Note as well that the location of this centre will be more or less constant, so even allowing for 33,000 years of galactic drift it could not possibly be behind the Sun on 21/12/11.

However even if it were true that the exact point in the sky which will be directly behind the Sun on that date does turn out to be (by a massive coincidence) the location of the 'centre of the galaxy' (whatever you might understand that to be) please note that the Sun is not a single point in the sky, but instead a disk 30 arcminutes across. This means that the hypothetical point you refer to has also been eclipsed by the disk of the Sun for several days running at the time of the Solstice in 2010, 2009, and for several years before that.

Thank you for that. I had wondered about the relative angular width of a large black hole 33,000 l.y. away and a medium sized star 93M miles from here.
Further to that would it not be entirely possible that a large star in the range of 100 l.y. from us would also cover a wider portion of the sky than a large black hole 3,000 times farther away and thus have eclipsed us from this mystical lifeforce?

I would suspect that in the last 26,000 years that there have been several stars that have eclipsed or partially eclipsed the galactic center from view from Earth. Just happens that they have not done so in the last few decades, before which we would not have had the ability to even notice.

JeffD1
2011-Jan-30, 04:19 AM
Read up on Plate techtonics.

Or tectonics. (Note that I seldom correct spelling unasked; this time, it mattered.)

Not to rub it in but because I can be a joker.......

I am a tech. I have been known to have a vodka, with a bit of tonic, in my glass, next to my plate.

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-30, 09:29 PM
Dear Moderator:

I thought that I was following the rules, which I have diligently read.

In re' the first point: I don't understand what you mean by "handwaving". Can you be more specific? I was answering to the best of my ability.

In re' the second point: I was under the impression that I had answered every direct question put to me - if I missed some, I apologize to you and to the respondent. If you would be so kind as to point out those that I have not answered, I shall be happy to do so. Should I be replying "To The Thread" in these cases? I have been simply hitting "Reply".

Thanks for any advice!

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-30, 09:32 PM
do you or Jenkins have a detailed model showing how this 26,000 year eclipse cycle is supposed to work? I don't see how it could work physically.
.

I'm sorry, I do not have such a model - it is strictly conjecture as far as I know.

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-30, 10:22 PM
Noah's flood? There is no evidence for a world-wide flood, if that's what you're claiming. Real floods occur, but they have known physical causes.

More than ninety cultures around the world have detailed traditions of a world-wide flood in their past. (Google "Noah's Ark Traditions" for more information on this if you are interested) As an example, when Captain James Cook discovered the Sandwich Islands in 1778, he was surprised to find that the native islanders had a tradition of a flood that destroyed the world, and that they knew Noah as "Noe", in their language. Your belief that "there is no evidence for a world-wide flood..." is incorrect; I submit that perhaps you are to much thinking "within the box" in this matter. If the Flood were of the scale described in Genesis ("15 cubits above the highest mountains"), it would have completely rearranged the entire topography of the world; the "evidence" would be so widespread and common that it would be perceived as ordinary bedrock. However, I will submit that geologists have over the years, built up a considerable body of evidence for a world-wide flood. For instance, if you read Charles Darwin's seminal book "On the Origin of Species" you will see that during the Beagle's first voyage, Darwin disembarked from the ship on the Atlantic Coast just north of Tierra del Fuego and - with two companions - hiked over the mountains to examine the strata thereof, picking up the Beagle on the Pacific Coast of Peru after she had rounded Cape Horn. They spent several weeks at this. Darwin reports that the mountaintops of Peru contained large oyster shells and many clam shells; this is commonly found on high mountaintops all over the world. Would not this be considered "evidence"? Mount Everest at an altitude of 29,035' is covered with sea shells - many climbers have reported this. The Coconino Sandstone found off the Hermit Trail at the Grand Canyon and other evidence compiled by Geologist Dr. Steven Austin are described in his book "Grand Canyon; Monument to Catastrophe"), it describes additional evidence which you might find an interesting read. The Wall Street Journal had a front page article last year about the current controversy and confrontations going on between scientists of various persuasions, about such evidence -especially the formation of the Grand Canyon. While you may not subscribe to these beliefs, the fact is that this is evidence in support of a theory; the fact that it is controversial makes it all the more worthy of neutral and unbiased scientific study.

I hope that I have answered your question. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-30, 10:47 PM
Originally Posted by The Wiseman
He describes a hurricane in Europe being initiated three years prior by a butterfly moving it's wings on a branch in a tree in the Amazon forest of South America - the tiny air currents being fortuitously amplified by (seeming) random events in the atmosphere that culminate in massive force years later.


If he does say that then he is a misguided fool. I am more inclined to think you have either misunderstood him or are misrepresenting him.

Dear Strange:
I'm surprised that you are not familiar with this example, it is well-known in modern science. Monsieur le professeur Henri Poincare of the University Nancy (for your information that's in France, Strange) first posited this idea in the late nineteenth century - it's known as "The Three Body Problem", the essence of which is that - when you project into the future farther and farther, you need greater and greater precision about the process that you are modeling, because your error rate grows very rapidly. Poincare's example of this - The Three Body Problem - first describes two planets in a solar system; with nothing else affecting the course of these two planets, you could predict their behavior. But add in a third body between the two planets - even a very small one like a comet - and you cannot predict more than a few periods into the future. In 1964 MIT (that's in Cambridge MA, Strange) scientist Edward Lorenz, working on a huge computer model of weather dynamics, ran into the three-body problem when results for a series of computer runs gave him greatly varing results with what seemed to be identical input parameters. After considerable study and experimentation, Lorenz found that the problem was caused by very small rounding errors in the input data. Because he was working on meteorological forecasting, he called this the "Butterfly Effect", and it is described in the literature just as I described in my post. Lorenz expanded this concept into what we know today as "Chaos Theory". (That's mathematics, Strange).

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-30, 10:53 PM
You should follow your own advice

Dear Tsig:
How so? Please explain.

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-30, 11:47 PM
First of all, under dark-sky conditions the naked-eye limit is closer to ten thousand stars, so you're off by a factor of 3. Second, we've been observing the heavens with telescopes for several centuries, and I have no idea where you came up with "150 years".

Dear sts60:
"Off by a factor of 3." So - in a universe of discourse composed of multi-trillion stars and other heavenly bodies, I made an error of - what? seven thousand stars? OK - I'll take those odds.

"150 years" was simply my ballpark approximation of when - in my opinion, astronomy began to get some real traction in science - In my opinion that was the 1877 discovery (that's actually 134 years, sorry 'bout that) of the counter-orbiting of the moons of Mars by Asaph Hall of the US Naval Observatory using the new telescope just installed - interestingly, Jonathan Swift the author of "Guliver's Travels" in 1726 had described that very phenomena in the second of his four fictitious books of these fantastic travels. Since no telescope then existed with the requisite amount of precision, how Swift knew some 151 years prior that Mars had moons and that they orbited opposite one another, is another of those mysteries that Science perfers to ignore. (Like "dowsing" - don't get me started!)


But much more importantly, the reason I can make such a statement is that in all that time, stars simply don't just disappear for no apparent reason. That's not a bald assertion of fact; it's the nature of things, as best we can tell. That does not mean that there may be some entirely new facet of stellar behavior, some entirely new law of physics, which may suddenly show itself - but there is no evidence for such a thing when it comes to such stellar now-you-see-it-now-you-don't claims. You're simply waving your hands and saying because we don't know everything about the Universe, we can't make claims about how things work with any confidence. That's simply not correct, and it's very presumptuous of you to say so; it's the equivalent of saying that nobody knows more than you do about the subject. That, in fact, is an insult to many smart people who have devoted their careers to understanding the Universe.


Dear sts60:
"That's the nature of things, as best we can tell..." You've made my point, my friend. What I am trying to get across is that we are working with such a small sample of stars - the fruits of our race's puny several hundred years of "study" of the stars - that your "as best we can tell" might be only a thousandth of one percent of the reality of the Universe. There may be stars that act in completely different ways, on the other side of the Universe away from our sight. What we see might only be a tiny deviant clump of isolated stars that act significantly different from the other 99.999% of the Universe. This is Aristotle's elephant and the five blind men, personified!

Sorry - I'm not maligning the people and their work over years of study in Science, nor am I maligning you for defending them and what they have accomplished; I'm simply saying that we can't set this in concrete and build on it yet - it's a case of "Oh God - thy sea is so big and my boat is so small"; and unless we recognize that - as far as the Universe out there is concerned - we the human race have yet to even discover fire and invent the wheel! You don't think that we are going to play "Captain Kirk and the Starship Enterprise" with chemical rockets, glass telescopes and cramped "spaceships" that more resemble a pile of oil drums floating in space, do you?

Here's an example: During the 'sixties I used to hang around with a group of Grumman engineers and scientists designing the first moon lander, so you are getting this from the horse's mouth. There was a huge concern about the moon dust that would be encountered when the lander hit the surface. Given that "x" amount of space dust fell on the moon's surface every day, multiplied by the then-estimated age of the Universe (13.4 Billion years) - there was a heck of a lot of dust - maybe hundreds of feet deep. Nobody could tell from earth; there were no air currents to stirr the dust around and no way to tell. So Grumman built really large landing pads for the Lander (you can see them in Armstrong's photos of his first footprints on the moon) strictly by guess - they simply hoped that they would be large enough to do the job. The astronauts used a radar altimeter on descent to the surface, and were trained to land blind if the expected huge clouds of moon dust billowed up as a result of the jets. Well, you know the story - they landed - very little dust encountered - and man's first footstep on the moon sunk in to the surface about 1/2 inch. How much dust was on the surface? About as much as would be deposited in about 6,000 years. My point in relating this is to say that - without empirical data - you can go off on the wrong tangent. And we don't have enough empirical data about the Universe out there to fill a thimble. To pretend to be able to calculate the present position of a star 10,000 light years away, using data that is 10,000 years old - is simply foolish. That's my point.
Thank you for your thoughts.

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-31, 12:07 AM
[Wiseman, are you aware that you are repeatedly telling us the same things that most of us will have known for a very long time?/QUOTE]
Paul, how would I know? I've been on this Board for maybe three days. I don't know if you are teenagers or greybeards. I thought it best to explain in simple words and repeat until the message got across; apparently it did. If I offended anyone, I apologize.
[QUOTE]Are you aware that you sound as if you are quoting stuff you don't really understand? For instance:


Why, the Milky Way galaxy alone, contains some four billion stars and is 100,000 light years in diameter, which means that the light from a distant star all the way across the disc of the Milky Way from earth, has been journeying toward us for 100,000 years!
No it hasn't
Paul, please see my previous explanation (above). My point was not the exact distance involved between earth and the distant edge of the Milky Way galaxy, my point was that the data is OLD. And you can't predict the position of a star ten thousand years ahead in time (or even thirty-three thousand years) ahead, and say that you are off by so-and-so degrees. Because you don't know that - perhaps 5,000 years ago - your object took a 90 degree turn to Port for unknown reasons. Or Staboard. Or was impacted by something large. Please see my comments on Poincare's Three Body Problem (the Butterfly Effect) in another post in this Thread, please.


He was talking specifically about homeopaths, but it sums up your posts rather well, Wiseman: starlight is many years old, therefore the information we gather from it is old, therefore we can't rely on anything, therefore there's a good chance that a completely baseless word salad about galactic eclipses might turn out to be correct

OK, so I've made my point.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-31, 12:55 AM
Originally Posted by The Wiseman
The specific claim made by John Major Jenkins - that the galactic center would be aligned with the earth, and that direct path would be - for the first time in 26,000 years - eclipsed by our Sun.


All you've given us in support of the notion this is possible is some handwaving about how we can't really know anything. People have gone into some considerable detail showing that we do in fact know a great deal about how the universe has consistently behaved in all observable cases. Note the word "consistently". While nobody can, of course, completely eliminate the possibility that (eg) the moon might really turn into green cheese next Tuesday, any pragmatic approach to understanding the universe accepts that the overwhelming consistency of observations over the preceding decades, centuries and millennia can be used as a model to be getting on with. (Please don't leap on the word "model" to kick off another refrain of "not real". What's Jenkins' model? Why is it subject to different standards of proof?)

Dear Cavorite:
I can't speak for Jenkins' model, nor for his theory. I simply say that you don't have enough data to either accept or reject it, because we know next to nothing about the Universe out there. Our pitiful efforts to see points of light through carboard tubes and ground window glass over the past few hundred years are remarkable for the data that they have produced - however, it is not enough; it does not even scratch the surface. For someone to say that we are off the center of the galaxy by "x" degrees and therfore, Jenkins' theory does not hold water is specious; no one knows where the center of the galaxy is at this moment because we cannot see it. We can only project an orbit from it's last known position thousands of years ago.
Why delude ourselves that this is "Science"? "Astronomy" is far closer to "Astrology" than it is to "Science" - we are nothing but children in this huge playpen, pushing toy cars about and pretending that they are real. If Jenkins is correct in his theory, we will know on 12/21/2012 because we will all die. If he is not correct, and life continues, we still do not have a definitive answer because something else might have gone wrong.


Many of your specific examples of how things might dramatically change have been shown to be as close to impossible as you care to call it. For example, Proxima Centauri can not ever, ever go nova. We know quite a bit about novae, and quite a bit about red dwarfs

Dear Cavorite:
How can you know "quite a bit about novae..." when we have observed less than 1,000 of them? (see my earlier quote about the number of novae observed in the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies per year - 40 per year in the Milky Way; 10 per year in Andromeda. And how many zillion stars are in the universe? A lot! We don't know squat about novae - we simply haven't got a statistically-valid sample with which to work! If you went with what we know today concerning the death of stars - and you are working with a Universe of multi-trillion stars - how can you say that we "know quite a bit"?


For example, Proxima Centauri can not ever, ever go nova
My use of Proxima Centauri as an example was only because it is the closest star at 4.2 light years distance; the example was to focus on the fact that if it disappeared or went nova, or turned purple, or turned to green cheeze, we would not know about it until 4.1 years later (plus a few weeks), because of the limitation of the speed of light - when the light disappears, or turns purple, or cheeze-like as seen from earth - then we know that good ole Proxima Centauri is no more. It is a valid example of the main point of my thesis - that we can't predict the position of the center of the galaxy because our data is way out of date. Whether or not Proxima Centauri can or cannot physically "go nova" is moot - my example considers only its sudden disappearance and our ignorance of that disappearance for several years of time, due to the distance involved and the limitation of the speed of light.


It's been pointed out that the sun is way, way off beam from the galactic centre, no matter where it might precisely be to the nth decimal place. It's so far away that the error bars on the movement of all the stars will make no difference whatsoever. To use another analogy, I might not be able to predict with sub-millimeter accuracy where a hit baseball will land, but I can be darn well sure that it's not going to hit someone in a different city.

Dear Cavorite:
You say: "It's been pointed out that the sun is way, way off beam from the galactic centre..." NO! NO! Cavorite my friend, we have been discussing - in these futile typings of mine and with my pitiful ability to communicate - that it is impossible for anyone to determine whether or not at this moment, where our sun actually is, with respect to that fabled galactic center! Because the galactic center that you see out there in the sky tonight, actually occupied that position tens of thousands of years ago! In all probability it has moved. It may have speeded up or slowed down for unknown reasons. But we don't know the new location! You can't see where it is at this moment because the speed of light is limited to 186,000 miles per second, and the distances are so vast that we will never be able to get an updated position of the galactic center! And because we have such limited knowledge of the forces and motions of distant stellar objects, we cannot predict from this ancient data, where the galactic center is, today! Poincare's three body problem proves it impossible to predict the motions of only three bodies for even an hour or so into the future - and here we are dealing with a billiards table upon which multi-trillions of mighty suns move about like chessmen in three (or more!) dimensions! And here you are, my friend, predicting the location of an point in the universe (the galactic center) thousands of years into the future, based on where it was and how fast it is traveling, then. It can't be done! You cannot even say with any certainty that the galactic center even exists, today.
Jenkins may be right or he may not be right when he posits the interruption of a stream of life coming from the galactic center caused by the eclipsing of that stream by our Sun, something that he calculates happens once every 26,000 years. That is his theory, I leave him to it. I only say that no human - using our present knowledge - can say or not say where the galactic center exists at this moment in time! In fact, the galactic center could well have vanished - suppose that it disappeared right now - and we would not know of this fact for some tens of thousands of years from today.

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-31, 01:05 AM
Hi Peter,
Sorry, but I'm not that familiar with Jenkins claims, really. My only point is that you cannot point to the position of the galactic center as it is today, because you have only seen it as it was tens of thousands of years ago - when those points of light in our telescope began their journey at 186,000 miles per second. The distance from the earth to the center of the galaxy is some tens of thousands of light years, and we have no idea of where that galactic center is at this moment. It could even have disappeared for reasons unknown. The limitation of the speed of light prevents this.

Here's something that you can hang your hat on, and that is; that on 12/21/2012 a line drawn from Earth to the center of the sun and on into the cosmos, either will or will not, intersect the galactic center at the location were it will be in 12/21/2012. If it does intersect the galactic center - wherever it might be at that point in time - and there is some vital energy/life force that has been streaming to earth from that galactic center for lo these past 26,000 years, the sun's eclipse may or may not, interrupt that life force. If it does, I would expect some consequence to occur within the human race. If it does not, then Jenkins was wrong.

My only point is that we cannot point to the location of the center of the galaxy, today or ever. For the above reasons.
Thanks for your thoughts.

eburacum45
2011-Jan-31, 09:37 AM
We can point to the centre of gravity of the galaxy, or at least where it was 33,000 years ago, by looking at the orbit of the black hole Sag A*. To move to a location which would coincide with the solstice in 2012 would require that the centre migrates a distance of around a thousand light-years, as a speed which is a considerable fraction of the speed of light. This is not physically possible, because of the massive inertia of the galaxy and is just as absurd as the idea that Proxima Centauri will explode.

Cavorite
2011-Jan-31, 10:59 AM
I can't speak for Jenkins' model, nor for his theory. I simply say that you don't have enough data to either accept or reject it, because we know next to nothing about the Universe out there.

I note you didn't have any comment on my analogy about the notion that we don't "know" that men can't give birth. Once again, once we get past the sophomoric "We can't know anything" affectations, we can start to put actual limits on our knowledge of things, and enumerate exactly why we believe those things. You have so far shown little to no interest in listening to explanations of why we know what we know on this subject. You "simply saying" that we don't have enough evidence does not make it so.


Our pitiful efforts to see points of light through carboard tubes and ground window glass over the past few hundred years are remarkable for the data that they have produced - however, it is not enough; it does not even scratch the surface. For someone to say that we are off the center of the galaxy by "x" degrees and therfore, Jenkins' theory does not hold water is specious; no one knows where the center of the galaxy is at this moment because we cannot see it. We can only project an orbit from it's last known position thousands of years ago.

Your repeated position seems to boil down to "Because we don't have absolute knowledge we have no knowledge". This is, of course, sophistry and nonsense. I notice you didn't address my second analogy either, that even though we can't know the exact landing spot of a baseball we can know it won't land in another city. Do you know what error bars are?


How can you know "quite a bit about novae..." when we have observed less than 1,000 of them? (see my earlier quote about the number of novae observed in the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies per year - 40 per year in the Milky Way; 10 per year in Andromeda. And how many zillion stars are in the universe? A lot! We don't know squat about novae - we simply haven't got a statistically-valid sample with which to work! If you went with what we know today concerning the death of stars - and you are working with a Universe of multi-trillion stars - how can you say that we "know quite a bit"?
Because we do, and your continued affectation of incredulity makes no difference to that knowledge. You've actually given the answer yourself - there are many, many stars in the universe. Lots and lots of red dwarfs, for example, not one of which has ever gone nova. Given the number that we can see, that allows us to place statistical limits on the likelihood of one of them going nova, turning into green cheese, or any of the other of your obviously specious examples. ALL novae occur in close binary stars, a lone M-class star just ain't going to do it. By observation of the stars that do go nova, we have been able to determine quite well the physical conditions leading to them doing so. By looking at the remnants of the nova we can determine quite a lot about the makeup of the stars responsible. In other words, we have a model that accords with observed reality. That model shows that M-class stars simply can't go foom, as they are not dense enough even if they are in a close binary. Observations accords with reality. Much like our model of anatomy accords with the theory that men can't get pregnant.


My use of Proxima Centauri as an example was only because it is the closest star at 4.2 light years distance; the example was to focus on the fact that if it disappeared or went nova, or turned purple, or turned to green cheeze, we would not know about it until 4.1 years later (plus a few weeks), because of the limitation of the speed of light - when the light disappears, or turns purple, or cheeze-like as seen from earth - then we know that good ole Proxima Centauri is no more.

And no matter how many times you repeat the obviously frivolous examples, they remain nonsense. I'm sure that you yourself would admit if pressed that turning into green cheese is just being silly and not taking the matter seriously. We can eliminate that as a possibility. We can, despite your unsubstantiated handwaving, eliminate a nova. So what does that leave us? If you once again just handwave and say "oh, you know...stuff that you silly scientists haven't ever seen", then your position can safely be ignored as being as untenable and unsupported in reality as if you claimed that men can become pregnant.


NO! NO! Cavorite my friend,

On an off topic note, can I politely ask that you refrain from what comes across as condescension? I don't know if that is what it is intended as, and I apologise if it's not, I'm just telling you how it looks from my end. It's possible to be civil without affectations of overfamiliarity.


Poincare's three body problem proves it impossible to predict the motions of only three bodies for even an hour or so into the future
A gross oversimplification. We can't know, due to the various tugs from other bodies in the solar system, exactly where Mars will be in its orbit a million years form now. But we can be pretty certain that it will not be moving retrograde, or orbiting around Jupiter. There are constraints on the uncertainty. Once again, your refrain seems to be "lack of absolute knowledge is no knowledge, so some guy making up fairy tales has just as much of a chance of being right as everyone else". It simply doesn't work like that. Direct question:Chaos, uncertainty and so on preclude us from absolute knowledge of where a baseball will land. Do you claim this means it could land anywhere, including further away than the energy available to the ball says it could possibly go? Because that's the situation you are proposing. You're basically hinting at a so-called thermodynamic miracle, eg where all the water molecules in the air of a room just happen through random motion to end up filling an empty glass sitting on the table - so unlikely you'll never see it in the lifetime of the universe, but not prohibited by natural law. But thermodynamic miracles, however startling the range of possible effects, still can't break the laws of physics. The water molecules can't move faster than the speed of light when rushing to the glass, for example. The degree of movement needed for your stellar thermodynamic miracle is of that order of magnitude. To move five degrees, when viewed from Earth, would require stars tens of thousands of light years away to move way faster than they could possibly achieve. Baseballs don't land in different cities.

Strange
2011-Jan-31, 11:20 AM
More than ninety cultures around the world have detailed traditions of a world-wide flood in their past. (Google "Noah's Ark Traditions" for more information on this if you are interested)

This is not evidence of a world-wide flood. This is evidence of stories of a world-wide flood; i.e. that many places have experienced devastating floods at some time in the past (the entire world they knew of may have been flooded but that is not quite the same thing). No surprises there.


As an example, when Captain James Cook discovered the Sandwich Islands in 1778, he was surprised to find that the native islanders had a tradition of a flood that destroyed the world, and that they knew Noah as "Noe", in their language.

You said this before. Could you provide a reference for this story because I haven't heard of it before.


I submit that perhaps you are to much thinking "within the box" in this matter.

Ah, the old "closed minded" argument. I wondered how long that would take.


Darwin reports that the mountaintops of Peru contained large oyster shells and many clam shells; this is commonly found on high mountaintops all over the world. Would not this be considered "evidence"?

It is evidence, but not for a flood. I guess we can add geology to the list of subjects you clearly don't know much about.

Strange
2011-Jan-31, 11:51 AM
I'm surprised that you are not familiar with this example, it is well-known in modern science.

Actually ... surprise! ... I do know about Poincare, chaos theory and the so-called butterfly effect.I assume from your garbled descriptions that you have read some popular science articles on the subject. Just a couple of things: it is nothing to do with "error rate"; and it may surprise you to know that we can predict the orbits of the planets very precisely. Perhaps you don't believe that because "tomorrow they may all jump to a new position - we just don't know".

Your description of the butterfly effect ("a hurricane in Europe being initiated three years prior by a butterfly moving it's wings") is even more fantastical than the usual pop-science version (perhaps you could tell us which hurricane this was, the species of the butterfly and which tree it was on at the time?).

You might want to peruse this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/110327-The-butterfly-effect-truth-and-fiction) to get a better idea of what the "butterfly effect" is really about.

chrlzs
2011-Jan-31, 12:22 PM
It seems that if you put forward many, many unsupported claims, that there is a chance that some may slip through unquestioned... Wiseman, would you mind easing up a little on the claims, allowing each one to be questioned? Or is there a reason you would prefer not to do that? (Paragraphs would be good, too.)

Earlier you said:

Of course I stand behind my words!

So I would now like to formally ask you to stand behind (ie cite and support) one of these claims in particular - and to keep it focused and not over-burden you with requests, I'll nominate the same one as Strange..

..when Captain James Cook discovered the Sandwich Islands in 1778, he was surprised to find that the native islanders had a tradition of a flood that destroyed the world, and that they knew Noah as "Noe", in their language.

Please tell us where this 'information' comes from. I also note that you have stated on another thread that the islanders:

.. stopped him, saying 'Oh yes, we know this story - we call the man "Noe".'

They spoke very good English... or was this a translation? Again, please provide a source for this 'quote'.

Bobbar
2011-Jan-31, 02:17 PM
Darwin reports that the mountaintops of Peru contained large oyster shells and many clam shells; this is commonly found on high mountaintops all over the world. Would not this be considered "evidence"? Mount Everest at an altitude of 29,035' is covered with sea shells - many climbers have reported this.

Where do you think mountains come from? Have you thought that, perhaps, mountains have not always been mountains?

Space Chimp
2011-Jan-31, 02:20 PM
They spoke very good English... or was this a translation? Again, please provide a source for this 'quote'.

I'd like to see a source for this quote too, as Cook was eventually killed by the natives of the Sandwich (now Hawaiian) Islands before he attempted to leave. Some third party must have written it down.

captain swoop
2011-Jan-31, 04:23 PM
The Wiseman I would like to see the source for this quote as well. When you put forward something like this in the Conspiracy Forum you are bound by the rules to support it and answer questions. Can you do this with your next post please?

JeffD1
2011-Jan-31, 06:51 PM
Wiseman, what I see in your posts is a continual arguement from ignorance. That is to say that because there are uncertainties in how we model the universe, your conjectures on how the universe works are just as valid. This is a logical fallacy.

Whereas there is ample experimental and observational evidence, and mathematically dervied theory to support the accepted models, your conjectures are bald assertions with no backing whatsoever.

The positions and movement of galaxies and stars follow very closely to the paths that accepted science predicts they will. In fact small but significant differences between prediction and observations have arose and that gave rise to the inclusion of 'dark' matter and energy. However these cannot be shown to have the effect of causing , for instance, Proxima C. to disappear instantly and there is no evidence of any method by which such a thing could occur.
Modern math and physics can predict the life cycle of stars. There may not be exact observational evidence (we have not observed any star for a few billion continuous years), that it is correct, but you cannot simply substitute a wild conjecture that has as its backing only the imagination of the author.

JeffD1
2011-Jan-31, 06:58 PM
Where do you think mountains come from? Have you thought that, perhaps, mountains have not always been mountains?

Next thing you will be telling us is that a 1000 foot wave might deposit shells that high up on coastal mountains.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jan-31, 07:13 PM
Well... There is this legend about an ark... :whistle:

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jan-31, 07:24 PM
Paul, please see my previous explanation (above). My point was not the exact distance involved between earth and the distant edge of the Milky Way galaxy, my point was that the data is OLD.

Yes, I know that was your point, My point was that you were quoting things you didn't really understand. You've since confirmed this in spades by your comments about the butterfly effect.


OK, so I've made my point.

Your point being that some random, baseless nonsense might turn out to be right. What a worthless point. There is an infinite number of nonsensical statements that people can make. Why should we give attention to any particular one of them?

The Wiseman
2011-Jan-31, 08:35 PM
The Wiseman I would like to see the source for this quote as well. When you put forward something like this in the Conspiracy Forum you are bound by the rules to support it and answer questions. Can you do this with your next post please?

"Narrative of the Voyages round the World performed by Captain James Cook", by A. Kippis, D.D., F.R.S. (1788). See his last voyage - not sure of the page. A pretty standard thing for British ship captains in those years - indeed, all European governments used the excuse of "spreading the Gospel" in those years to fund, finance and launch expeditions that were really intended to enrich crown and individual investors.
Thanks for your interest.

Garrison
2011-Jan-31, 08:55 PM
"Narrative of the Voyages round the World performed by Captain James Cook", by A. Kippis, D.D., F.R.S. (1788). See his last voyage - not sure of the page. A pretty standard thing for British ship captains in those years - indeed, all European governments used the excuse of "spreading the Gospel" in those years to fund, finance and launch expeditions that were really intended to enrich crown and individual investors.
Thanks for your interest.

Checked the bio for the author, he was a biographer and presbyterian minister, so he wasn't a first hand witness, and perhaps polished the tale for religious reasons? Bio is here:

Andrew Kippis (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kippis,_Andrew_%28DNB00%29)

chrlzs
2011-Jan-31, 09:07 PM
"Narrative of the Voyages round the World performed by Captain James Cook", by A. Kippis, D.D., F.R.S. (1788). See his last voyage - not sure of the page. A pretty standard thing for British ship captains in those years - indeed, all European governments used the excuse of "spreading the Gospel" in those years to fund, finance and launch expeditions that were really intended to enrich crown and individual investors.
Thanks for your interest.
So, you are not sure of the page, and you can't actually quote the relevant text... Do you not have access to a copy of the book? Then where did you get this information from, and why have you not explained that?

According to my brief research, Kippis was living in Westminster at the time...

And what did you mean by 'a pretty standard thing'? That Cook supposedly held bible classes for the islanders, or that people who didn't go on the voyages wrote books about them?

Finally, I've just downloaded a copy of the text of that book (it is available at project gutenberg), and it does NOT seem to contain the words Noah or Noe...

So your clarification would be greatly appreciated...

Van Rijn
2011-Jan-31, 09:07 PM
.

I'm sorry, I do not have such a model - it is strictly conjecture as far as I know.

Okay, so it's a nonsense claim. It's obvious that it wouldn't work physically, and there isn't any evidence for this "life force" bit.

sts60
2011-Jan-31, 09:09 PM
Dear sts60:
"Off by a factor of 3." So - in a universe of discourse composed of multi-trillion stars and other heavenly bodies, I made an error of - what? seven thousand stars? OK - I'll take those odds.
The point is that actual values do matter. Trillions of stars doesn't enter into it here; we're talking about the stars we can see without aid. It's a specific problem, and you're conflating one issue (naked-eye stars) with another (actual number of stars in the Universe). To me, that represents part of your problem - your all-purpose answer to any challenge is an appeal to ignorance based on how big the Universe is. But that's not especially useful if you're actually trying to ascertain whether something is correct or not.


"150 years" was simply my ballpark approximation of when - in my opinion, astronomy began to get some real traction in science - In my opinion that was the 1877 discovery (that's actually 134 years, sorry 'bout that) of the counter-orbiting of the moons of Mars by Asaph Hall of the US Naval Observatory using the new telescope just installed - interestingly, Jonathan Swift the author of "Guliver's Travels" in 1726 had described that very phenomena in the second of his four fictitious books of these fantastic travels. Since no telescope then existed with the requisite amount of precision, how Swift knew some 151 years prior that Mars had moons and that they orbited opposite one another, is another of those mysteries that Science perfers to ignore. (Like "dowsing" - don't get me started!)
OK, I won't get you started. But, again, you're imposing your view of what's important onto a much deeper and wider record. Of course we have our own views on what's important, but those views should be informed by what all those centuries of observation, experiment, and theory have actually gained us. I would certainly disagree with your assertion of when "real traction" began to be gained - I would say much earlier, when Tycho and Kepler first gained us the knowledge of the nature of planetary orbits.


Dear sts60:
"That's the nature of things, as best we can tell..." You've made my point, my friend. What I am trying to get across is that we are working with such a small sample of stars - the fruits of our race's puny several hundred years of "study" of the stars - that your "as best we can tell" might be only a thousandth of one percent of the reality of the Universe. There may be stars that act in completely different ways, on the other side of the Universe away from our sight. What we see might only be a tiny deviant clump of isolated stars that act significantly different from the other 99.999% of the Universe. This is Aristotle's elephant and the five blind men, personified!
Again, this is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. Yes, conceivably there is another region in the Universe where F=ma1.35 except on left-handed Tuesdays, and fish really do need bicycles, and stars wink off and on like Christmas tree lights. But there is no a priori reason to believe this is so, and there is certainly no evidence for such a thing. In a more specific context, there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the silly claims of the "2012" crowd.


Sorry - I'm not maligning the people and their work over years of study in Science, nor am I maligning you for defending them and what they have accomplished; I'm simply saying that we can't set this in concrete and build on it yet - it's a case of "Oh God - thy sea is so big and my boat is so small";
Actually, you are maligning them, even if unintentionally. Do you really think that astronomers and physicists haven't considered and tested the notions of anisotropy?


and unless we recognize that - as far as the Universe out there is concerned - we the human race have yet to even discover fire and invent the wheel! You don't think that we are going to play "Captain Kirk and the Starship Enterprise" with chemical rockets, glass telescopes and cramped "spaceships" that more resemble a pile of oil drums floating in space, do you?

Non sequitir. I work in the space business, and I have my own opinions as to future exploration technologies, but this does not support claims that other parts of the Universe act on entirely different physical laws than apply in this part.


Here's an example: During the 'sixties I used to hang around with a group of Grumman engineers and scientists designing the first moon lander, so you are getting this from the horse's mouth....

No. You're not the "horse's mouth".

The "deep lunar dust" issue had been settled long before the first manned landing. In fact, the Apollo LM design in that regard was validated by the Surveyor landings three years before.


My point in relating this is to say that - without empirical data - you can go off on the wrong tangent. And we don't have enough empirical data about the Universe out there to fill a thimble.

And with no empirical data, and no theory, you can't even get to wrong. Why do you even bother referring to scientific issues when you are simply going to disregard science if it offers any constraints to your guesses?


To pretend to be able to calculate the present position of a star 10,000 light years away, using data that is 10,000 years old - is simply foolish. That's my point.
My point is that you're wrong. We can compute those positions accurately enough. To say that we can't because of some unspecified aphysical cause is speculation stretched to the point of fantasy.


Thank you for your thoughts.
And thank you for your thoughts. But I don't think there's much else to say, so I'm done with this thread.

Van Rijn
2011-Jan-31, 09:21 PM
We can point to the centre of gravity of the galaxy, or at least where it was 33,000 years ago, by looking at the orbit of the black hole Sag A*. To move to a location which would coincide with the solstice in 2012 would require that the centre migrates a distance of around a thousand light-years, as a speed which is a considerable fraction of the speed of light. This is not physically possible, because of the massive inertia of the galaxy and is just as absurd as the idea that Proxima Centauri will explode.

In addition, according to this claim, it apparently zips about the galaxy while we aren't looking to maintain a careful, regular 26,000 year eclipse cycle.

Van Rijn
2011-Jan-31, 09:40 PM
Dear Cavorite:
I can't speak for Jenkins' model, nor for his theory. I simply say that you don't have enough data to either accept or reject it, because we know next to nothing about the Universe out there.


This is what I call an "invisible elf" argument. That is, you admit you have no evidence, and the idea is physically absurd, but you claim that it still should be taken seriously. Using a science standard, you would have to show that your argument worked physically and fit the evidence better than alternatives. You haven't begun to do that.

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 02:04 AM
Dear Chrizs:

I was privileged to physically examine a first edition copy at the Manchester Library (UK, not CT) some years ago while in England on business during the 'nineties. I'm quoting from my personal notes made during that trip - since that was not the main purpose of my trip, the notes are informal, made only for my own amusement - I'm sorry that I did not capture page numbers for you at that time, but I had no idea then, that anyone would want that specific information years later. It may be that you are working from a later edition that the gutenberg folks used for the scanning process - I cannot say.

Now to your question about "A pretty standard thing" - many European ship captains in those centuries of exploration attempted to spread the Gospel to primitive peoples who they encountered during their voyages. This is why the Spanish destroyed almost all of the Mayan libraries during their conquest of Mexico in the early years of the sixteenth century - they wished to eradicate the local religion and replace it with Roman Catholicism. It was also a good way for ship captains and owners to get additional funding from church groups because such a promise to spread the Gospel abroad could be used for "special collections" from church congregations who were afire during those years to spread the Gospel abroad.

I trust that I have answered your questions; thank you for your interest.

Jens
2011-Feb-01, 02:04 AM
I looked a bit into the Noah thing out of my own curiosity. First of all, it wasn't Cook himself, but later missionaries. I think the main source was William Ellis, a missionary who traveled around Polynesia in the 19th century. The mythical figure is normally written as Nu'u, and there seems to be the possibility that the missionaries embellished the story a bit to make it seem more biblical.

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 02:14 AM
Dear Chrizs:


It seems that if you put forward many, many unsupported claims, that there is a chance that some may slip through unquestioned... Wiseman, would you mind easing up a little on the claims, allowing each one to be questioned? Or is there a reason you would prefer not to do that? (Paragraphs would be good, too.)

Every "claim" was made as a response to a direct question from a member of this forum. I answer as best I can; you'll simply have to deal with it.

Thanks for your interest.

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 02:21 AM
Checked the bio for the author, he was a biographer and presbyterian minister, so he wasn't a first hand witness, and perhaps polished the tale for religious reasons? Bio is here:

Andrew Kippis

Dear Garrison:
Surely, anything is possible. I'm quoting from notes I made long ago.

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 02:35 AM
This is what I call an "invisible elf" argument. That is, you admit you have no evidence, and the idea is physically absurd, but you claim that it still should be taken seriously. Using a science standard, you would have to show that your argument worked physically and fit the evidence better than alternatives. You haven't begun to do that.


Dear Van Rijn:
You are free to call it whatever you want - but by doing so you simply prove to fair-minded readers that you are deliberately missing my point - which is, that no one on earth can point to the present location of the center of the Milky Way galaxy, due to the fact that our most current data for determining that location is thousands of years old. Therefore, Jenkins could be right - because a line drawn from the earth at the time of the winter solstice of 2012, through the center of our sun and beyond into intersteller space, MIGHT strike the center of the Milky Way galaxy on 12/21/2012. I maintain that no one can say that this event cannot occur on 12/21/2012. Please note that I am not making any claim for the validity or non-validity of Jenkin's hypothesis. My only point is as described, above.

Thank you for your interest.

Swift
2011-Feb-01, 03:03 AM
Dear Van Rijn:
You are free to call it whatever you want - but by doing so you simply prove to fair-minded readers that you are deliberately missing my point - which is, that no one on earth can point to the present location of the center of the Milky Way galaxy, due to the fact that our most current data for determining that location is thousands of years old. Therefore, Jenkins could be right - because a line drawn from the earth at the time of the winter solstice of 2012, through the center of our sun and beyond into intersteller space, MIGHT strike the center of the Milky Way galaxy on 12/21/2012. I maintain that no one can say that this event cannot occur on 12/21/2012. Please note that I am not making any claim for the validity or non-validity of Jenkin's hypothesis. My only point is as described, above.

Thank you for your interest.
One of the fundamental problems with your idea that location information about stars or the center of the galaxy are "out of date" is that since everything: light, gravity, mythical life forces, is limited to the speed of light, so, as far as those of us on Earth are concerned, "now" for the center of galaxy is what we currently see. Our information on the position of the center of the galaxy is "current". If somehow the center of the galaxy disappeared "now" (a meaningless idea), it would have no effect on us for the 26,000 years or so it took for light to travel that distance.

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 03:11 AM
Originally Posted by The Wiseman
Here's an example: During the 'sixties I used to hang around with a group of Grumman engineers and scientists designing the first moon lander, so you are getting this from the horse's mouth....


No. You're not the "horse's mouth".

The "deep lunar dust" issue had been settled long before the first manned landing. In fact, the Apollo LM design in that regard was validated by the Surveyor landings three years before.

Dear sts60:
Ummm....I hate to tell a guy whose about to lose his job ("I work in the space business") that he's blowing smoke, but I will do so in the spirit of discussion for this august Group. So, sts60, please prove to us that deep lunar dust was NOT a concern for the Apollo Program, will you? And - while you're at it - kindly prove your previous rash remarks with a few references about the Surveyor program. Specifically, describe why the Surveyor Program landings completely eliminated the concern of my friends the Apollo designers, about deep lunar dust on the Sea of Tranquility (where Apollo 11 first landed) Kindly cite "chapter and verse" on your references, because, sts60, I am calling you out on this.



The floor is yours, young man.

Swift
2011-Feb-01, 03:21 AM
Dear sts60:
Ummm....I hate to tell a guy whose about to lose his job ("I work in the space business") that he's blowing smoke, but I will do so in the spirit of discussion for this august Group. So, sts60, please prove to us that deep lunar dust was NOT a concern for the Apollo Program, will you? And - while you're at it - kindly prove your previous rash remarks with a few references about the Surveyor program. Specifically, describe why the Surveyor Program landings completely eliminated the concern of my friends the Apollo designers, about deep lunar dust on the Sea of Tranquility (where Apollo 11 first landed) Kindly cite "chapter and verse" on your references, because, sts60, I am calling you out on this.



The floor is yours, young man.
OK, now the moderator hat is on. And no, the floor is still yours Wiseman.

Our rules do not require anyone to prove mainstream ideas, nor do they require your questions to be answered. If sts60 choses to respond, that is his decision, but he is under no obligation.

However, as the proponent of the non-mainstream idea, it is your requirement to answer questions and to prove your ideas.

I would also be careful with saying another member is "blowing smoke"; that is getting rather close to saying he is lying, which would be a personal attack. If you believe he is incorrect about something, it is your obligation to prove it, with something more than your personal speculations.

Halcyon Dayz
2011-Feb-01, 03:22 AM
Dear Van Rijn:
You are free to call it whatever you want - but by doing so you simply prove to fair-minded readers that you are deliberately missing my point - which is, that no one on earth can point to the present location of the center of the Milky Way galaxy, due to the fact that our most current data for determining that location is thousands of years old. Therefore, Jenkins could be right - because a line drawn from the earth at the time of the winter solstice of 2012, through the center of our sun and beyond into intersteller space, MIGHT strike the center of the Milky Way galaxy on 12/21/2012. I maintain that no one can say that this event cannot occur on 12/21/2012. Please note that I am not making any claim for the validity or non-validity of Jenkin's hypothesis. My only point is as described, above.

Thank you for your interest.
And I MIGHT have an invisible dragon living in my garage.
How is your might be even remotely testable.




Dear sts60:
Ummm....I hate to tell a guy whose about to lose his job [...]

You've been told to read the rules.

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 03:30 AM
Dear Moderator:


One of the fundamental problems with your idea that location information about stars or the center of the galaxy are "out of date" is that since everything: light, gravity, mythical life forces, is limited to the speed of light, so, as far as those of us on Earth are concerned, "now" for the center of galaxy is what we currently see. Our information on the position of the center of the galaxy is "current". If somehow the center of the galaxy disappeared "now" (a meaningless idea), it would have no effect on us for the 26,000 years or so it took for light to travel that distance.


"Now for the center of the galaxy is what we currently see?" OMG! Are you serious? And you are a Moderator of this Blog? How vast is your lack of understanding! I ask you to go out in your backyard on a clear night and point your finger at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy - where it is at this very moment. That is all that I am asking for! I am willing to pay you $1,000 cash on the spot! Because YOU CANNOT DO THIS WITH YOUR FINGER NOR WITH ANY TELESCOPE IN THE WORLD! Because you are looking at a picture that is 33,000 years old - for pity's sake - those little pinpoints of light started their journey from the center of our Milky Way some 33,000 years ago! And we have not had an "update" since - and we will not - because of the limitations of the speed of light! To extrapolate the "position" of that center of the galaxy using a straight line projection some 33,000 years in arrears, and to then to say "here it is!!! - Here is the Center of the Milky Way Galaxy on the First Day of February 2011" is specious in the extreme!

Sales managers do this every day - i.e., "we sold this much in 2008, we sold this in 2009, we sold this in 2010 - therefore, we will sell this much in 2012"!

Get a life, people! Because of the vast distances and the limitations of the speed of light, we know NOTHING about what is going on out there RIGHT NOW because we can't SEE WHAT IS GOING ON! Because of the vast distances and the limitations of the speed of light, WE CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING OUT THERE, RIGHT NOW!

Wake up! You are being counseled by FOOLS! Most of them are on this Blog at the moment! Read the responses from the "learned senior members" of this Blog! They simply don't understand!

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 03:36 AM
Dear Moderator:

"Blowing smoke" is simply a counter to "No, you're not the horses mouth".

You are supposed to be neutral and fair! Get with it!

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-01, 04:21 AM
Dear Van Rijn:
You are free to call it whatever you want - but by doing so you simply prove to fair-minded readers that you are deliberately missing my point - which is, that no one on earth can point to the present location of the center of the Milky Way galaxy, due to the fact that our most current data for determining that location is thousands of years old.


No, you're missing several points that have been made already on this thread. The biggest one is that you're pulling a completely unsupported idea out of the air. You could, with exactly as much justification, claim that the Earth were in imminent danger of being eaten by an enormous mutant star goat.

Given any reasonable definition of "center of the galaxy" your idea doesn't make sense. Also, the sun is in a different position in its orbit about the galaxy than it was 26,000 years ago, so a regular eclipse doesn't make sense either. And, you seem to be calling for an extremely exacting period of eclipse, which also doesn't make sense. Then there is the whole "life force" silliness, and for all of this you have provided exactly zero evidence.

But please feel free to start.

JeffD1
2011-Feb-01, 04:25 AM
Dear Moderator:



"Now for the center of the galaxy is what we currently see?" OMG! Are you serious? And you are a Moderator of this Blog? How vast is your lack of understanding! I ask you to go out in your backyard on a clear night and point your finger at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy - where it is at this very moment. That is all that I am asking for! I am willing to pay you $1,000 cash on the spot! Because YOU CANNOT DO THIS WITH YOUR FINGER NOR WITH ANY TELESCOPE IN THE WORLD! Because you are looking at a picture that is 33,000 years old - for pity's sake - those little pinpoints of light started their journey from the center of our Milky Way some 33,000 years ago! And we have not had an "update" since - and we will not - because of the limitations of the speed of light! To extrapolate the "position" of that center of the galaxy using a straight line projection some 33,000 years in arrears, and to then to say "here it is!!! - Here is the Center of the Milky Way Galaxy on the First Day of February 2011" is specious in the extreme!


Did you completely miss the point of the above post?

One of the fundamental problems with your idea that location information about stars or the center of the galaxy are "out of date" is that since everything: light, gravity, mythical life forces, is limited to the speed of light,

Any effect from any point in the universe, if indeed restricted by the speed of light, would result in the universe as we see it now being the end all and be all of how and when it will affect us.
If something happens to the galatic center right now it will affect us no sooner than 33,000 years, unless you now wish to argue that the speed of light is not a limitation on the mythical 'lifeforce'..

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-01, 04:38 AM
Therefore, Jenkins could be right


Let's try another tack.

As we've already covered, any number of unsupported claims can be made. Do you take Jenkins seriously? If so, why?

Do you think anyone else should care about this notion? If so, why?

By the way, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

astromark
2011-Feb-01, 06:37 AM
It would seem to most of us that the 'Wiseman' is not wise... and I would challenge his right to use such a word as a name...
excepting of course that this might actually be his name and at which point I would withdraw my critique... and say sorry.
See how easy that is ?
We do know where the centre of the milky way is. You might not. Yes we do understand the motion and distance and time principle of your argument. We factor that into calculations of known motion and can calculate real information of considerable accuracy. WE do know of the velocity of the Galactic disk.
How do you think the Cassini craft reached Saturn ? The Solar system also has motion... we calculate.
You destroyed any credible argument as soon as you mentioned Noah... we try to avoid that area. Like elves and goblins...
We know of the time and distance and curvature of galactic movement... why do you insist alone...
Is it not reasonable that when all asunder are telling of a error... there might be one.

chrlzs
2011-Feb-01, 07:26 AM
Dear Chrizs:
I was privileged to physically examine a first edition copy at the Manchester Library (UK, not CT) some years ago while in England on business during the 'nineties.
Forgive me for doubting that, but.. I do. Largely that is because:
- you have already made numerous similar unsupported claims (like the Grumman engineers who supplied you with completely inaccurate information), so your record is not good.
- there is NO other supporting evidence whatsoever that you have presented, or that I can find, to back up this claim - yet more than one transcription of the document exists. Do you now claim they were all falsified? It was just "lucky you" that noticed?


I'm quoting from my personal notes made during that trip - since that was not the main purpose of my trip, the notes are informal, made only for my own amusement..
Oh, and mine too - I am highly amused by these claims. :@@:


I'm sorry that I did not capture page numbers for you at that time, but I had no idea then, that anyone would want that specific information years later. It may be that you are working from a later edition that the gutenberg folks used for the scanning process - I cannot say.
Yes, that must be it... ummm, why did they do that, do you think? What about the other transcriptions? The fact that no-one else has reported this 'fact', despite your claim that the documents were on public display, is also a minor problem for you, but never mind... BTW, were they open at the right page, or did you spend some time leafing through them with permission from the library? How did you know where to look?


Now to your question about "A pretty standard thing" - many European ship captains in those centuries of exploration attempted to spread the Gospel to primitive peoples who they encountered during their voyages. This is why the Spanish destroyed....
In other words, you have extrapolated this to Cook, and tied it to your sole undocumented memory.. and the subject is quite off-topic. Glad we got that all sorted.


I trust that I have answered your questions
No, you have not. Responding to questions about unsupported claims by attemtping to back them up with more of the same, is not answering. As a person with a modicum of experience in science, investigations and logical thinking, I can see I've just wasted a lot of my time - if it was me, I would be apologising for raising a claim that is indefensible and sending people on a wild goose chase.

I find it particularly telling that you haven't seemed to have made even a half-hearted effort to find supporting evidence, instead supplying this highly questionable personal story. Again, if it was me, I would be making a huge effort to prove that my claim was true, including returning to that library and asking for their records to either verify your claim, or find where that document was now. Libraries are quite good at tracking their exhibits, as a rule. Anyone live near Manchester and like a challenge (I take it you don't, 'Wiseman')? I think we know what the result would be, but who knows...

Alan G. Archer
2011-Feb-01, 07:37 AM
"Narrative of the Voyages round the World performed by Captain James Cook", by A. Kippis, D.D., F.R.S. (1788). See his last voyage - not sure of the page. A pretty standard thing for British ship captains in those years - indeed, all European governments used the excuse of "spreading the Gospel" in those years to fund, finance and launch expeditions that were really intended to enrich crown and individual investors.
Thanks for your interest.


So, you are not sure of the page, and you can't actually quote the relevant text... Do you not have access to a copy of the book? Then where did you get this information from, and why have you not explained that?

According to my brief research, Kippis was living in Westminster at the time...

And what did you mean by 'a pretty standard thing'? That Cook supposedly held bible classes for the islanders, or that people who didn't go on the voyages wrote books about them?

Finally, I've just downloaded a copy of the text of that book (it is available at project gutenberg), and it does NOT seem to contain the words Noah or Noe...

So your clarification would be greatly appreciated...


I looked a bit into the Noah thing out of my own curiosity. First of all, it wasn't Cook himself, but later missionaries. I think the main source was William Ellis, a missionary who traveled around Polynesia in the 19th century. The mythical figure is normally written as Nu'u, and there seems to be the possibility that the missionaries embellished the story a bit to make it seem more biblical.

Welcome to BAUT, The Wiseman.

Yes, Nu'u or Nuu, not Noe, the so-called "Hawaiian Noah." The Internet Archive has made available the full text of Albert Pierce Taylor's book that mentions Nuu, Under Hawaiian Skies: A Narrative of the Romance, Adventure and History of the Hawaiian Islands (http://www.archive.org/details/underhawaiianski001950mbp), published in 1922.

Nu'u (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu'u) has a little Wikipedia entry.

Tenshu
2011-Feb-01, 08:02 AM
coming back here to see what's happened to this discussion kinda makes me feel bad as it seems like an infinite loop debate with no way to break the loop.

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 08:20 AM
I looked a bit into the Noah thing out of my own curiosity. First of all, it wasn't Cook himself, but later missionaries. I think the main source was William Ellis, a missionary who traveled around Polynesia in the 19th century.

By which time they would have heard the bible stories and may have incorporated them into their own mythology - something we know frequemtly happens.


The mythical figure is normally written as Nu'u, and there seems to be the possibility that the missionaries embellished the story a bit to make it seem more biblical.

Also something that we know happens.

So, what to do: accept more of TheWiseman's fantasies, or go with the explanation based on things we know happen? Hmmm.... I'll have to think about it.

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 08:52 AM
"Now for the center of the galaxy is what we currently see?" OMG! Are you serious? And you are a Moderator of this Blog? How vast is your lack of understanding! I ask you to go out in your backyard on a clear night and point your finger at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy - where it is at this very moment. That is all that I am asking for! I am willing to pay you $1,000 cash on the spot! Because YOU CANNOT DO THIS WITH YOUR FINGER NOR WITH ANY TELESCOPE IN THE WORLD! Because you are looking at a picture that is 33,000 years old - for pity's sake - those little pinpoints of light started their journey from the center of our Milky Way some 33,000 years ago! And we have not had an "update" since - and we will not - because of the limitations of the speed of light! To extrapolate the "position" of that center of the galaxy using a straight line projection some 33,000 years in arrears, and to then to say "here it is!!! - Here is the Center of the Milky Way Galaxy on the First Day of February 2011" is specious in the extreme!

OMG! Are you serious? And you are The Wiseman?

Lack of understanding much? This whole "eclipse" myth is based on the apparent positions of the stars; i.e. where they appear to be to us now. We can point to the apparent position of the centre of the galaxy (however you choose to define that - and, arguably, it can't be defined precisely) because it is BY DEFINITION where we see it to be.


Get a life, people! Because of the vast distances and the limitations of the speed of light, we know NOTHING about what is going on out there RIGHT NOW because we can't SEE WHAT IS GOING ON! Because of the vast distances and the limitations of the speed of light, WE CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING OUT THERE, RIGHT NOW!

That's right. In fact, all the stars in the universe turned into chocolate rabbits 4 minutes and 23 seconds ago. One day you will see I am right.

And, in case you are wondering, this idea is strongly supported by evidence (well at least as much as any 2012 "prophecy"). It is depicted in cave paintings and the writings of Atlantis - as preserved on Easter Island. I know this because I saw something scribbled in the margin of a library book once.

The problem is there are an infinite number of silly stories we can make up on the basis that "OMG we don't know anything so anything could happen!!!11!!". So, even statistically, this "life force" nonsense is ... well, nonsense.


Wake up! You are being counseled by FOOLS! Most of them are on this Blog at the moment! Read the responses from the "learned senior members" of this Blog! They simply don't understand!

Wow. But of course, you do. Right. Got it.

We should just ignore all the scientists and engineers who have brought us the advantages of the modern world (as well as, admittedly, some of its problems) and believe instead the incoeherent - and useless - ideas of Some Guy On The Internet.

But congratulations on not having actually used the phrases "closed minded" or "sheeple". Well done.

* Or do you actually have anything more interesting to say than "OMG!!!!! WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!!!!!" ?

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 08:53 AM
coming back here to see what's happened to this discussion kinda makes me feel bad as it seems like an infinite loop debate with no way to break the loop.

Don't worry. It is quite entertaining!

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 09:09 AM
Oh no, your argument has so many holes, it is almost addictive picking holes in it.


My position is that no one can point to the Center of the Milky Way (four-hundred billion stars; 100,000 light years across!) because the picture we have of everything that we can see outside of our solar system is way, way outdated due to the enormous distances that light must cross and the time that would take; because of this, we cannot know whether or not, our Sun will eclipse our direct view of the Center on that date. If - however - the results on that day are catastrophic - we can opine that yes, Jenkins was right, and we were indeed, cut off from that "life force"; as a result of the catastrophy, a galactic alignment was proven to have taken place.

Because, in your cosmology, the stars and galaxies can jump about at random whenever we are not looking, the galactic center could be absolutely anywhere. Which means that the probability of any sort of alignment is zero. So your own argument works against this mythical catastrophe. Well done.

captain swoop
2011-Feb-01, 09:50 AM
Please keep things polite people, remember the ruls on civility and decorum

captain swoop
2011-Feb-01, 09:56 AM
Darwin reports that the mountaintops of Peru contained large oyster shells and many clam shells; this is commonly found on high mountaintops all over the world. Would not this be considered "evidence"? Mount Everest at an altitude of 29,035' is covered with sea shells - many climbers have reported this. The Coconino Sandstone found off the Hermit Trail at the Grand Canyon and other evidence compiled by Geologist Dr. Steven Austin are described in his book "Grand Canyon; Monument to Catastrophe"), it describes additional evidence which you might find an interesting read.

I asked once before in response to an earlier post and got no reply.

Are you aware of 'Plate Tectonics' and Mountain Building? Are you aware that some of the worlds mountains are growing other areas are sinking, it can be measured directly.

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 10:19 AM
I apologise to TheWIseman if anything I said has come across as impolite, that was certainly not the intention. (It was intended to be written in a slightly humorous style; I should have realised by now that that doesn't work :))

astromark
2011-Feb-01, 10:32 AM
Oh Captain swoop you might upset our newbie... Plate Tectonics does not match his made in a ladle thinking...
Most of us will agree that a catastrophic flood might be a historic event of fact... In Europe. what year did the Mediterranean sea fill... could this be the event that flooded the 'Atlantis'... ( No. ) Where did the water go ? I am sorry but as welcome here as you are... ( and I do bid you welcome.) This is not a argument that you can win... here.
There is not a alignment in 2012 of any galactic disk or plain or core or life force or anything else....
BUT. ! You seem to think you know something we do not. Would you please inform us of what it is that you think is going to happen late in 2012... I wait with baited breath... not for what you believe, but what you know.

Peter B
2011-Feb-01, 01:05 PM
The Wiseman said:
How much dust was on the surface? About as much as would be deposited in about 6,000 years. My point in relating this is to say that - without empirical data - you can go off on the wrong tangent.

and


The Coconino Sandstone found off the Hermit Trail at the Grand Canyon and other evidence compiled by Geologist Dr. Steven Austin are described in his book "Grand Canyon; Monument to Catastrophe"), it describes additional evidence which you might find an interesting read.

A reference to 6000 years of dust accumulation on the Moon, and a reference to a creationist Geologist.

Wiseman, are you a creationist?

Swift
2011-Feb-01, 02:05 PM
It would seem to most of us that the 'Wiseman' is not wise... and I would challenge his right to use such a word as a name...

astromark,

That comment is inappropriate, even as a joke. Do not make fun of other members.

Jeff Root
2011-Feb-01, 02:59 PM
"150 years" was simply my ballpark approximation of when - in my
opinion, astronomy began to get some real traction in science - In my
opinion that was the 1877 discovery (that's actually 134 years, sorry
'bout that) of the counter-orbiting of the moons of Mars by Asaph Hall
of the US Naval Observatory using the new telescope just installed -
interestingly, Jonathan Swift the author of "Guliver's Travels" in 1726
had described that very phenomena in the second of his four fictitious
books of these fantastic travels. Since no telescope then existed with
the requisite amount of precision, how Swift knew some 151 years
prior that Mars had moons and that they orbited opposite one another,
is another of those mysteries that Science perfers to ignore.
Phobos and Deimos both orbit in the direction that Mars rotates.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 03:16 PM
Since no telescope then existed with the requisite amount of precision, how Swift knew some 151 years prior that Mars had moons and that they orbited opposite one another, is another of those mysteries that Science perfers to ignore. (Like "dowsing" - don't get me started!)

Ignoring the error that Jeff has pointed out (and the "science ignores inconvenient truths" cliche which is equally false) the two moons of Mars idea seems to go back to Kepler who misinterpreted a cryptic clue from Galileo. The words "lucky guess" comes to mind. Although its is claimed that Swift described the orbits surprisingly accurately that is only true for a very loose definition of "accurate".

Oh, and by the way, there have been quite a few scientific studies of dowsing. Most show that results are no better than chance while a few suggest that people may, subconsciously, be picking up geophysical cues.

NEOWatcher
2011-Feb-01, 03:23 PM
Wiseman; I ask this.
When you are driving, and see something cross your path, are you sure it's going to be there when you get there?
After all; you are seeing it as it was before the light got to your eyes. So; why wouldn't that car be gone by the time you get there?

Bobbar
2011-Feb-01, 04:21 PM
I just apply cruise control, channel the life force, and dowse my way through the collision. None of that calculating, predicting results nonsense. I could only predict the other cars location to within a few inches anyway, so why bother? Then again, it could be a dense ball of meerkats by the time I get there.

You gotta have an open-mind about these things.

sts60
2011-Feb-01, 05:00 PM
I said I was done, but apparently The Wiseman has a bone to pick with me, and I felt he deserved a response:


Dear sts60:
Ummm....I hate to tell a guy whose about to lose his job ("I work in the space business")
Really? I'd be just fascinated to see your evidence for that claim. Perhaps you can cite "chapter and verse" from my your discussions with my employer. Or cite exactly what I do and why exactly you think that's about to end. Go ahead; take all the time you need. I'll check back every year or so, as a lunchtime diversion from my job.


...that he's blowing smoke, but I will do so in the spirit of discussion for this august Group. So, sts60, please prove to us that deep lunar dust was NOT a concern for the Apollo Program, will you?

Deep lunar dust had been a concern - like many other things which were initially unknown at the start. Thomas Gold in particular championed the notion (though he himself disputed this (http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/shooting-moon.html)) that the surface might contain very deep areas of fine dust. But this view was never widely held in the lunar science community, and Gold himself noted in the article "Ranger Moon Pictures: Implications", Science 4 September 1964: 1046-104 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/145/3636/1046.citation), that:
"...it is important to keep separate the discussion of the origin of the material and its present mechanical properties - a point which has been confused in the literature and in popular writings where it has often been implied that if the low ground is filled with dust sediment then it will be loose and soft to some great depth. This is no more a direct implication than it would be in the Mississipi basin."

1965's NASA Technical Note D-2944 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=157436&id=1&as=false&or=true&qs=Ntt%3Dd-2944%26Ntk%3Dall%26Ntx%3Dmode%2Bmatchall%26Ns%3DHa rvestDate%257c1%26N%3D285), Physics of the Moon addressed the question but the consensus was already that the lunar "seas" were basaltic materials, neither composed of nor covered to dangerous depths by great pools of dust,. Further investigations (see below) had settled the issue well before men stepped on the Moon (despite the odd bit of breathless media hype).


And - while you're at it - kindly prove your previous rash remarks with a few references about the Surveyor program. Specifically, describe why the Surveyor Program landings completely eliminated the concern of my friends the Apollo designers, about deep lunar dust on the Sea of Tranquility (where Apollo 11 first landed)

The Surveyor program was intended to settle issues facing Apollo as part of its science campaign, as noted in NASA SP-184 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/NASA-SP-184.pdf), Surveyor Program Results:
"Four Surveyor spacecraft landed in the lunar maria, near the equator. These sites were selected primarily because they were being considered for Apollo manned lunar landings."

(By the way, as for "your friends the Apollo designers" and "horse's mouth", well, I have worked for and with Apollo-era engineers and astronauts. There is a lithograph of the original Mercury capsule drawing on my wall, signed by the design engineer who drew it; I used to work with him. So, if your references were intended as some sort of appeal to authority, well, I'll keep my own counsel on that.)

Surveyor 5 (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1967-084A) landed (Latitude 1.41 N, Longitude 23.18 E) in the Sea of Tranquility near the Apollo 11 landing site (Latitude 0.67 N, Longitude 23.49 E). Three other Surveyors landed in lunar "seas", as did two of the Soviet Luna craft, before Apollo 11. Ranger 8 (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1965-010A) had also taken close-in images in Mare Tranquilitatis during its impact mission there. In particular, I commend to your attention Section 4 of SP-184, "Lunar Surface Mechanical Properties", which notes:
"No settling of the Surveyor spacecraft after landing was detected, except in response to spacecraft commands and to compression of shock absorbers during the lunar night. No changes or movements, except those caused by spacecraft operations, were noticed in disturbed or undisturbed lunar surface material overperiods of observation of up to 6 weeks."

NASA SP-163 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/surveyorV.pdf), Survyeor V Preliminary Report, indicated that the vehicle footpads dug in on the order of 12 cm (less than 5 inches) upon initial impact in the lunar "sea" (Section 4). Further soil tests were made by firing of the vernier engines. Surveyor III (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1967-035A) had also dug into the soil with a sampling arm in Oceanus Procellarum.


Kindly cite "chapter and verse" on your references,
See above. Always happy to oblige.

... because, sts60, I am calling you out on this.
Empty bluster noted. You really might want to actually learn about the topic, or select someone else who knows as little about it as you seem to, before pulling the Internet tough-guy routine next time.


The floor is yours, young man.
No. 46 years old, closing in on two decades as a space engineer. But at least you're consistently wrong. 'Bye now.

icarus5
2011-Feb-01, 05:03 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Eros_rotation_Dec._3-4_2000.gif/275px-Eros_rotation_Dec._3-4_2000.gifwell at 2012 should been also Polar reversal,so the magnetic fieldof the earth will be more weak,and second there should also been at 2012 biggest Solar storm from the sun.
so the only thinks that left is that eros will pass earth On January 31, 2012, Eros is expected to pass Earth at 0.179 astronomical units (16.6 million miles), to earth.
/so i am pretty sure every thinks will be ok..

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 05:45 PM
Wiseman; I ask this.
When you are driving, and see something cross your path, are you sure it's going to be there when you get there?
After all; you are seeing it as it was before the light got to your eyes. So; why wouldn't that car be gone by the time you get there?


Hi NeoWatcher:

You make a common mistake here - you just don't understand the scale involved. (It's not your fault though - after all, you are a Member of this Blog and therefore, influenced by your peers - who have been so NICE to me, the last few days).

So let me answer your question in this fashion. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, so it's plenty fast enough to deal with anything on earth (such as your example) - and surely fast enough for us to deal with most any purpose in the solar system. In your example, I have plenty of time to deal with oncoming traffic because to my biologically-tethered senses, the transfer of the light image of the oncoming car from "there" to "here" is almost instantaneous.

Sound at a distance however, is a different matter and shall be illustrative of my next point, which is travel between the stars. Sound travels in the atmosphere at sea level at only 768 mph - about one mile in five seconds. In his book "Huckleberry Finn", Mark Twain writes of watching from the shore, a man chopping wood on a raft in the middle of the miles-wide Mississippi River - how the axe would fall to the wood in apparent silence; then - with the axe again above the man's head, ready for the next cut - would come the "chunk!" of the previous stroke. I'm sure that you've had your own experiences with this.

When you travel outside the solar system between the stars, the distances are so vast that the speed of light becomes a limiting factor in communicating information - much like Mark Twain's example with the sound of chopping wood, the delay between an event out there in space, and the conveyance of that information by light, becomes significant; as the distances increase in space, they reach a point where the information being conveyed is so "stale" that is is useless. In most cases when you are dealing with intersteller distances, the age of the information exceeds a normal human lifetime (pretty much the definition of "uselessness"!)

In our solar system, light from the sun reaches earth in 8.3 minutes (93 million miles distance). Now, if we move ourselves out to the orbit of Pluto (3,666 million miles distance) light from the sun would reach our new location in five hours, twenty-eight minutes.

Now NEOWatcher - follow me on this theoretical mind problem: If the sun were to suddenly wink out, how long would it take us on earth to learn of it's disappearance? (just theoretical, fellows! I'm not proposing that our Sun would really disappear like this! So control yourselves! Please don't make angry postings to me about "our Sun simply won't act like that..." Are you with me on this, Strange? OK - From now on I'll shift to Junior High talk so that all this will be clear to you.)

And again - how long will it take for the theoretical folks on Pluto to learn of the Sun's demise?

Right! Oh, good for you! Us Earthlians would know about the bad news in about eight minutes, wouldn't we? And those theoretical Plutonians would not know that the Sun has suddenly disappeared for another five hours and twenty minutes - because they would be basking in the sunlight that had been coming at them, for millions of years. Then it is going to get dark, forever.

Yes, boys & girls, that's how it works with the speed of light! Now, suppose that we Earthlians just learned about the Sun going out, because it suddenly got really DARK! And we want to radio our friends on Pluto to expect the bad news. Can we do that?

'Fraid not, fellows, because radio waves travel at the speed of light too. In fact, Dr. Al taught us that NOTHING trumps the speed of light (as far as we know at this moment, anyway). Those wild 'n crazy Plutonians will enjoy another five hours and twenty minutes of that good 'ole sunlight and then, the Sun will wink out - and they, too - will be in the dark, just like us Earthians.

Now, hold that thought, NEOWatcher.

Ask yourself, "why is this important when we question whether or not there will be a Galactic Eclipse in 2012?" In order to answer that question, we've gotta have an appreciation of the scale of the Universe that we are dealing with, and develop an appreciation for things that we don't know about it. Take, for instance, the size of our solar system with respect to the Milky Way galaxy; if our solar system was reduced to the size of a quarter-dollar coin - with the orbit of Pluto being the rim of the coin - if that was done, then the Milky Way galaxy in the same scale would be about the size of the entire Western United States, all the way from the Mississippi River to the California coast.

About that held thought, NEOWatcher; do you remember my earlier example? The one about the Sun suddenly winking out and everything getting really dark outside? Do you remember that Earth would know about it a long time before Pluto would know? How much time? Yes! Pluto would know about the death of our Sun five hours and twenty minutes later than Earth would know about it - right? Oh, good for you!

Are you following this, Strange? I don't want to confuse you like I did with the "three body problem" back there. Tell me if I'm going too fast for you.

Now let's move this circus out into intersteller space in our theoretical space ship, and let's make believe that we can travel at the speed of light (since Dr. Al said that "you really can't do 100% of light speed", let's throttle back to 99.9%. Since this is theoretical, we'll forget about all those pesky Einsteinian real-world wrinkles and constraints). We'll travel at (almost) light speed in the direction of the nearest star-neighbor, Proxima Centauri for four and a fifth years, go into orbit around that sun, and now, we turn and look back at our own Sun.

Got that, NEOWatcher? Now I'm gonna do the "disappearing Sun" trick again; let's suppose that at that moment - this very moment when you are looking back at the good 'ole Solar System in which you grew up - that distant sun - our Sun! Suddenly winks out. Gone. Finished. Disappeared.

How long is it gonna take before you know that the ole homestead is no more, NEOWatcher? Can you figure that out for us?

Good! You will not have any idea that our Sun is gone and that everybody at home is dead - for Four years and a coupla months from that moment. Nobody can radio you, television you, laser you etc. because nothing can trump the speed of light. And we know how fast that is coming at us for our now-departed Sun, don't we? Four years and a coupla months. We are going to go about our business thinking that everything is fine at home, and home is gone!

Now - being at Proxima Centauri is bad enough - I mean, not knowing that Dan 'n Mom 'n Sis 'n Joe back in Aardvark, AK have shuffled off this mortal coil over four years ago - but suppose that we are talking about something happening 'way, 'way out in space, boys & girls? Like - for instance - the Center of the Milky Way galaxy? (Which I have been informed by good authority on this Blog and within this very thread, exists today some 33,000 light years away.)

We would needs travel in our theoretical spaceship at 99.9% the speed of light from Earth to the Center of the Milky Way galaxy for thirty-three-thousand++ years (the ++ to make up for the 0.1% that we throttled back to avoid annoying Dr. Al, but then, you already knew that) in order to observe the Center with our very own eyes.

(Wow! I have trouble remembering things now - how do you suppose I'd be after a journey like that?)

Now boys & girls - think real hard about this; Suppose that after this enormous journey to the Center - a journey that took us six times longer than it took the human race to develop - we go into orbit (or however we park our ship at the Galactic Center) and then we turn around and look back at the good 'ole Solar System from whence we sprang.

And now suppose that at that moment in time - right now - our good 'ole Sun dies. Winks out. Disappears.

Now NEOWatcher:

How long will it take for the light from our Sun to wink out on Earth? Right - about eight minutes and change.

How long will it take for the light from our Sun to wink out on Pluto? Yes! about five hours and twenty minutes after it winks out on Earth.

How long will it take for the light from our Sun to wink out in our cozy orbit near Proxima Centauri? OK! About four years and a coupla months!

And now for the grande finale (Are you following this, Strange? I'm using the little words for your benefit!)

How long is it gonna take for the light from our Sun to wink out at the Galactic Center? YES! About thirty-three thousand years! Our little space ship will be bumbling around the Galactic Center for thousands and thousands of years, before we are notified by the winking-out of good 'ole Sole back there at our home solar system, that all is Kaput.

Folks - if it works that way (from Sun to Center) it works the same way in return (Center to Sun).

Will you agree that a lot of things can happen out there in Space over a period of thirty-three thousand years - do you REALLY think that the Galactic Center will continue in exactly the same direction as it is traveling at this moment, for all that time? Will you allow that the Galactic Center might possibly speed up or slow down, it possibly might turn to Port of Starboard a coupla degrees or even make a 180? Why, heck! It might even disappear. You've gotta consider that a lot of stuff can happen during thirty-three thousand years! And when you're talk'n 'bout the center of 400 billion stars and thirty-three thousand years, there's a lot going on out there in Space of which we have no idea. Some of which might affect the Center of the Galaxy.

After all - we've only known about the Center of the Milky Way galaxy for a small portion of human memory, so we've only had a short time to study it - and all we know about it comes from an image that has been coming at us for thirty-three thousand years. Would it be reasonable to think that something might have changed in its direction, appearance, and speed, over all that period of time?

My point is simply this - because of these constraints, NO ONE CAN IDENTIFY THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE GALACTIC CENTER! And if you can't tell me where that Galactic Center is right now, how can you say with 100% accuracy, that our Sun will NOT eclipse the Galactic Center on 12/21/2012?

Ladies and Gents (you too, Strange) - I rest my case.

Space Chimp
2011-Feb-01, 06:10 PM
NO ONE CAN IDENTIFY THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE GALACTIC CENTER!

Ahhh. Putting it in caps makes it so.

Gillianren
2011-Feb-01, 06:22 PM
(It's not your fault though - after all, you are a Member of this Blog and therefore, influenced by your peers - who have been so NICE to me, the last few days).

This is not a blog. It is a discussion board. You might try actually discussing instead of blustering.

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 06:27 PM
Yes, boys & girls, that's how it works with the speed of light!

I have a bizarre suspicion that you really do think you are the only one who understands this. Ho hum.


Will you agree that a lot of things can happen out there in Space over a period of thirty-three thousand years - do you REALLY think that the Galactic Center will continue in exactly the same direction as it is traveling at this moment, for all that time? Will you allow that the Galactic Center might possibly speed up or slow down, it possibly might turn to Port of Starboard a coupla degrees or even make a 180? Why, heck! It might even disappear.

And suddenly it all goes wrong again.


You've gotta consider that a lot of stuff can happen during thirty-three thousand years!

The sun didn't disappear 7 minutes ago and the galactic center isn't going to magically disappear either. (I'm not sure what it would mean for the center of something to disappear, but that makes no less sense than anything else you have come up with.)


And when you're talk'n 'bout the center of 400 billion stars and thirty-three thousand years, there's a lot going on out there in Space of which we have no idea.

So, once again, your argument comes down to: "there is stuff we don't know, therefore it is entirely possible that the earth will turn into a bowl of petunias in 5 minutes time".


I rest my case.

You don't have a case.

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 06:28 PM
This is not a blog. It is a discussion board. .

Just add it to the list of things that TheWiseman hasn't understood yet

eburacum45
2011-Feb-01, 06:40 PM
My point is simply this - because of these constraints, NO ONE CAN IDENTIFY THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE GALACTIC CENTER! And if you can't tell me where that Galactic Center is right now, how can you say with 100% accuracy, that our Sun will NOT eclipse the Galactic Center on 12/21/2012?You do not seem to understand the scales involved. The Galactic centre is 33,000 ly away, but it is also observed to be 5.5 degrees from the direction which will be directly behind the Sun on 21/12/12. Thanks to trigonometry we can see that this represents a distance of 3177 light years. To get there in 33,000 years the galactic centre would require to travel at a little less than a tenth of the speed of light- no conceivable mechanism could accelerate the galactic centre to this speed in that time. Remember the galactic centre is currently observed to be more-or-less motionless with respect to the rest of the galaxy. If you are going to support this claim you will need to suggest a plausible mechanism for the fantastically rapid movement.

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 06:52 PM
No. 46 years old, closing in on two decades as a space engineer. But at least you're consistently wrong. 'Bye now.


Dear sts60:
I've a lot more miles on me than that, young fella! In fact, I could be your grandfather. I worked with Irwin Feerst at the IEEE in an attempt to keep engineering for the Space Program here in America, but the IEEE was too greedy for dues money, and so went "world wide" and look what we have today.

It's done. We're done. That said - You're a long way from retirement and I sincerely hope that you make another decade doing the "space engineering" that you obviously love, but I'm afraid that - unless you learn to speak Russian (or maybe Chinese) - you're gonna need to get into another line of work - cause the Shuttle's com'n down for the last time, Folks.

And like they used to say in the pubs of England 15 minutes prior to "Closing";

"Time, Gentlemen! Time!"

"Bye" yourself, sts60! "Good night sweet prince! And may flights of angels sing thee to thy Heavenly rest!"[/I]

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 06:56 PM
you're gonna need to get into another line of work - cause the Shuttle's com'n down for the last time, Folks.

Well, I have nothing to do with the space industry but even I can see that this is yet another area that TheWiseman knows nothing about.

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-01, 07:04 PM
I thought that scale point was amusing. It seemed quite clear to me The Wiseman wasn't understanding that issue. The scale of the center of the galaxy is immense, as well as the mass. To move a small bit of it would require moving millions of stellar masses, but to really move much of the center bulge of the galaxy, there would be billions of stellar masses of material to shift, and all of it, in this claim, just for little old Earth.

Anyway, I notice he has not answered these questions:



As we've already covered, any number of unsupported claims can be made. Do you take Jenkins seriously? If so, why?

Do you think anyone else should care about this notion? If so, why?


I wonder why he hasn't answered?

eburacum45
2011-Feb-01, 07:05 PM
In addition, exactly how does Jenkins himself know what the location of 'the centre of the Galaxy' was, 26,000 years ago? If (as he seems to suggest) it migrates around at ridiculous speeds, we will not know what location it was in at that date until the light from the centre of the galaxy arrives (in another seven thousand years). If (as you seem to be suggesting) the centre of the galaxy was apparently behind the Solstice 26,000 years ago, the light from that event hasn't arrived yet. Remember we are seeing it as it was in 31,000 BC, seven thousand years before the solstice was last in its present location on the ecliptic.

That gives 'the centre of the galaxy' a scant seven thousand years to migrate to the location of the last Solstice, let alone this one. It would need to travel at nearly half the speed of light to get there.

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 07:05 PM
My point is simply this - because of these constraints, NO ONE CAN IDENTIFY THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE GALACTIC CENTER! And if you can't tell me where that Galactic Center is right now, how can you say with 100% accuracy, that our Sun will NOT eclipse the Galactic Center on 12/21/2012?
You do not seem to understand the scales involved. The Galactic centre is 33,000 ly away, but it is also observed to be 5.5 degrees from the direction which will be directly behind the Sun on 21/12/12. Thanks to trigonometry we can see that this represents a distance of 3177 light years. To get there in 33,000 years the galactic centre would require to travel at a little less than a tenth of the speed of light- no conceivable mechanism could accelerate the galactic centre to this speed in that time. Remember the galactic centre is currently observed to be more-or-less motionless with respect to the rest of the galaxy. If you are going to support this claim you will need to suggest a plausible mechanism for the fantastically rapid movement.


Dear (misguided) Eburacum45:

For pity sake! Listen to yourself! "...but it is also observed to be 5.5 degrees from the direction which will be directly behind the Sun on 21/12/12. Thanks to trigonometry we can see that this represents a distance of 3177 light years..."

"It is also OBSERVED..." ????

What are you talking about here? Did you read this before you sent it in? You are 'OBSERVING' a 33,000 year-old picture and PREDICTING where it is, today! In the 33,000 years that passed here on Earth since that picture was taken (and you began your painstaking trigonometric measurements) on earth, civilizations have been born, rose and died, dinosaurs came, walked the earth and died, mountains rose and fell - and that's just one Earth! What do you think was going on out there in the Cosmos, you dufus?

Meanwhile - with T-Square and protractor, your K&E sliderule and your trusty high school trig text - you are painstakingly determining where the exact Center of the Milky Way galaxy is located in the sky? Based on a 33,000 year-old map.

Are you nuts? You haven't a clue as to where the Galactic Center is at this moment! Stop listening to the fossils on this Blog and sit in a corner for a couple of hours and think this through. I think you've got real potential.

Yep!

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 07:08 PM
Dear eburacum45:

That would be true - if only you knew where the Center of the Galaxy is, at this moment.

Otherwise - you point is moot.

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 07:12 PM
Dear
Originally Posted by Gillianren
This is not a blog. It is a discussion board. .
Just add it to the list of things that TheWiseman hasn't understood yet


Dear Strange:

Yep! A Chevvy is a "car" and a Cadillac is a "limo". Now I understand! (These are important things to know!)

Bobbar
2011-Feb-01, 07:15 PM
In the 33,000 years that passed here on Earth since that picture was taken (and you began your painstaking trigonometric measurements) on earth, civilizations have been born, rose and died, dinosaurs came, walked the earth and died, mountains rose and fell - and that's just one Earth! What do you think was going on out there in the Cosmos, you dufus?



What mountains have rose or fell in that amount of time? 33,000 years is a teeny weeny amount of time in an astronomical sense. The youngest mountains on the planet are over 70 million years old.

There's just something not quite right with your perception of time scales.

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 07:15 PM
Dear Van Rijn:



I thought that scale point was amusing. It seemed quite clear to me The Wiseman wasn't understanding that issue. The scale of the center of the galaxy is immense, as well as the mass. To move a small bit of it would require moving millions of stellar masses, but to really move much of the center bulge of the galaxy, there would be billions of stellar masses of material to shift, and all of it, in this claim, just for little old Earth.

Anyway, I notice he has not answered these questions:


As we've already covered, any number of unsupported claims can be made. Do you take Jenkins seriously? If so, why?

Do you think anyone else should care about this notion? If so, why?
I wonder why?


So - why do you continue to post?

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 07:16 PM
That would be true - if only you knew where the Center of the Galaxy is, at this moment.

Once more. Where it is "at this moment" is irrelevant. Surely, it is where the center appears to be that is relevant (and what all the 2012 hoaxes are based on).

Unless you are claiming that this magic "life force" can travel 33,000 light years in almost zero time. Which, given the fantasy cosmology you believe in, I guess you might.

But, again, if the center of the galaxy could be anywhere then why would it be lined up with the sun? The odds seem to be against it.

The Wiseman
2011-Feb-01, 07:16 PM
Dear Bobbar:

Please explain "not quite right".

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-01, 07:17 PM
Dear Van Rijn:



So - why do you continue to post?

Is that a refusal to answer my questions?

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 07:18 PM
Yep! A Chevvy is a "car" and a Cadillac is a "limo". Now I understand! (These are important things to know!)

Your error is more akin to saying a Chevy is a plane and a Cadillac is a boat. Just another indication of your sloppy thinking.

Kinetic
2011-Feb-01, 07:18 PM
What are you talking about here? Did you read this before you sent it in? You are 'OBSERVING' a 33,000 year-old picture and PREDICTING where it is, today! In the 33,000 years that passed here on Earth since that picture was taken (and you began your painstaking trigonometric measurements) on earth, civilizations have been born, rose and died, dinosaurs came, walked the earth and died, mountains rose and fell - and that's just one Earth! What do you think was going on out there in the Cosmos, you dufus?

So you think the centre of the galaxy moving with a speed close to a tenth of the speed of light is possible?

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-01, 07:18 PM
Here they are again, The Wiseman:


As we've already covered, any number of unsupported claims can be made. Do you take Jenkins seriously? If so, why?

Do you think anyone else should care about this notion? If so, why?

Bobbar
2011-Feb-01, 07:19 PM
Dear Bobbar:

Please explain "not quite right".

You keep insinuating that 33000 years is a mind-bogglingly long time. But when talking about cosmic events, it might as well be a picosecond.

tusenfem
2011-Feb-01, 07:20 PM
Dear (misguided) Eburacum45:


The Wiseman, you have been warned to not make these kind of comments.
Also there has been a general warning to keep it nice.
Apparently, that is a problem for you, an infraction for you, to hopefully get things more civilized.

Note, this makes a 3 day suspension for The Wiseman.

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 07:20 PM
Dear Bobbar:

Please explain "not quite right".

Err, I think he did: about 3 orders of magnitude. Do you actually read what people write?

eburacum45
2011-Feb-01, 07:21 PM
You are 'OBSERVING' a 33,000 year-old picture and PREDICTING where it is, today! No, I'm describing where the centre of the galaxy was observed to be 33,000 years ago, and calculating how fast it would have to move to get to the location of the solstice in that time. And of course, the location of the solstice 26000 years ago too; you must not forget that is also supposed to be important. To get to that location- 3177 light years from its observed location today - it would have to travel at half the speed of light.

Please explain how you suppose this could happen.

Gillianren
2011-Feb-01, 07:24 PM
Can you explain in a few short sentences exactly what you think is going on here?

Garrison
2011-Feb-01, 07:31 PM
Okay Wiseman if our obserevations of the light from the centre of the galaxy is 33,000 years old and therefore according to you invalid for predicting where the galactic centre will be then how can you or anyone else predict this 'eclipse' at a given time? What data are you or the original author of this notion using to make this prediction?

captain swoop
2011-Feb-01, 07:32 PM
In the 33,000 years that passed here on Earth since that picture was taken (and you began your painstaking trigonometric measurements) on earth, civilizations have been born, rose and died, dinosaurs came, walked the earth and died, mountains rose and fell - and that's just one Earth! What do you think was going on out there in the Cosmos, you dufus?

Ignoring the insult. Dinosaurs 33000 years ago?

Dinosaurs were the dominant animals for about 185 million years during the Mesozoic era, which lasted from 250 million years ago to 65 million years ago.

Strange
2011-Feb-01, 07:53 PM
What mountains have rose or fell in that amount of time? 33,000 years is a teeny weeny amount of time in an astronomical sense. The youngest mountains on the planet are over 70 million years old.

There's just something not quite right with your perception of time scales.


Ignoring the insult. Dinosaurs 33000 years ago?

Dinosaurs were the dominant animals for about 185 million years during the Mesozoic era, which lasted from 250 million years ago to 65 million years ago.

So we can add geology, history, paleontology (and perhaps some others) to the increasing long list of things that TheWiseman is largely ignorant of but loves to talk about with authority.

I wonder if he has met Mr Dunning and Mr Kruger...

pzkpfw
2011-Feb-01, 07:58 PM
Not to be taken as pointed at anyone much in particular, but can we all please show how discussion should occur by being as polite as we can, even in face of what is obviously quite frustrating?

Swift
2011-Feb-01, 08:10 PM
Upon some moderator discussion, we are closing this thread at the moment.

Though The Wiseman didn't start the thread, it is his thread now, for all practical purposes. Since he won't be with us for several days, the thread will wait till his return.

If someone thinks it should be opened sooner, please Report this post and give your reasons.