PDA

View Full Version : What Year are we in



bmpbmp
2007-Oct-19, 05:11 PM
A friend and I are having a debate about our year vs mayan calendar.

He says we are really now in 2012 because out cal is 5 years off according to the birth of christ. He gave me links with his approach. I do not know enough about mayan/greorian to debunk him, can anyone clear this up for me.

Thank You

http://www.tprconline.com/index.php?topic=27238.10;wap2
Post made on Quote from: McAirman on August 30, 2007, 12:11:18 AM

also this site

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread268417/pg1

Fazor
2007-Oct-19, 05:17 PM
Calandars are very arbitrary things, as far as years go. It just depends on what point you want to start counting from. Even if the Mayan calander started five years earlier, that's an arbitrary date aswell.

Our calandar year is based off a religious belief, but you could just as easily base it off of the date of the oldest known human remains, or the first time a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich was made.

BertL
2007-Oct-19, 05:17 PM
"The year we live in" is quite relative. It depends on which calendar you use.

bmpbmp
2007-Oct-19, 05:21 PM
I may have not explained myself well enough.

What I mean is he says that we are now in the year 2012 which is the end of the mayan calendar.

Which means that 2012 really equals 2007 which is now

Sorry I wasnt clear

Argos
2007-Oct-19, 05:22 PM
This is the 44th year of the Argosian Epoch.

Fazor
2007-Oct-19, 05:23 PM
Yeah, I got that. Sorry, mine was more a random observation than an answer; I don't know how the two systems compair. Tel him to stock up on extra canned goods and bottled water just in case. :)

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-19, 05:25 PM
A friend and I are having a debate about our year vs mayan calendar.

He says we are really now in 2012 because out cal is 5 years off according to the birth of christ. He gave me links with his approach. I do not know enough about mayan/greorian to debunk him, can anyone clear this up for me.No problem.

The Mayan's didn't use the birth of Christ to set up their calendar, so when it was encountered by Europeans, it was correlated with the European calendar1. So, the start corresponds to our Gregorian August 11, 3114 BC. If the Gregorian calendar is off and we have to add five years to all dates, then we are "really" at 2012, but the Mayan calendar "ends" (actually, restarts) five years later too, in 2017.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-19, 05:25 PM
This is the 44th year of the Argosian Epoch.

A foul epoch if there ever was one. :)

bmpbmp
2007-Oct-19, 05:28 PM
Hi hhEb09'1

I got your point on this, but if the mayan calendar ends in 2012 and not 2017 and if 2007 is really 2012 then the mayan calendar ends this year. Right

Fazor
2007-Oct-19, 05:29 PM
Oh oh oh! I think I can use some deductive reasoning to answer your question, however. I don't believe the Mayans numbered their years, like our current date system. In otherwords, I don't think the tribesmemberes dated their checks, 114th of Autunmous, 1601.

The Mayan calander is simply a record of patterns related to the earth's movement, which can be translated to days. Therefore, when it's said that the Mayan calander ends in 2012, they mean that the record of days runs out in what would be our 2012.

Or to put it another way, the calander was said to end in 2012 by the person or persons who translated it in terms of their calander, the Gregorian calender.

So to answer your question, the end of the Mayan calander is (most likely, IMHO) still in OUR 2012.

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-19, 05:30 PM
Hi hhEb09'1

I got your point on this, but if the mayan calendar ends in 2012 and not 2017 and if 2007 is really 2012 then the mayan calendar ends this year. RightNo, if this is really 2012, then the mayan calendar ends in 2017. If this is 2007, then the mayan calendar ends in 2012. Either way, it's five years out.

publiusr
2007-Oct-19, 05:32 PM
I still feel like I'm still living in 1972 myself.

Oh, the gadgets are better--wait a minute--my old rotary phone sounds better than any cell phone.

Scratch that. Other than the web, not much has changed.

bmpbmp
2007-Oct-19, 05:33 PM
Ok so if it is that simple where do the two threads that I posted get there reasoning for saying it is really 2012 now

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-19, 05:34 PM
That, and the price of a coffee

Fazor
2007-Oct-19, 05:36 PM
What threads? And whos reasoning? It's hard to tell where anyone gets their reasoning, or even if they're using reason (and for the record, "I saw it on the 'net" is not reasoning).

bmpbmp
2007-Oct-19, 05:39 PM
I didnt say it was actual reasoning I said there reasoning. For example that if christ was really born 5 years earlier, then our calendar is 5 years off, but if the mayans did not believe in god then there calendar would be accurate which would make our 2007 there 2012. atleast that is what I understood from my links I gave.

Or am I just confused on all this.

Fazor
2007-Oct-19, 05:48 PM
seeing as the Mayan calander was found and translated (or described) in terms of Gergorian years well after the birth or death of christ, I don't see how it would make a difference one way or the other if we were off five years. Their calender is not based off him; what are the chances that their calander was also then started within 5 years of his birth? They just happened to start keeping track of years arround that same time? What were they basing their start of the year on?

I'd still say it's pretty safe to assume that when it's understood that the Mayan calendar runs out in 2012, that's OUR 2012 being used to describe that.

bmpbmp
2007-Oct-19, 05:55 PM
Ok now i think that i am not grasping the concept

Fazor
2007-Oct-19, 06:18 PM
Let me see if I can word it correctly.

AFAIK, the Mayan calendar years were not numbered 0 (or 1) to 2012. The Mayan calandar was a set of divisions that accurately accounted for days and years based on the earth's orbit around the sun (like the Gregorian calender we use today).

For all I know, the start of each Mayan year might have been April 23rd on our calendars. I don't know how the years were broken down other than by number of days. But it's not important, because we don't talk about the Mayan calendar in terms of Mayan dates. We talk about the Mayan calendar in terms of Gergorian dates.

The year that Christ was born compared to the year we based our calendar on has no bearing on how we describe the calendar in our terms.

Another way to look at it is this: when they looked at the calander, instead of thinking in terms of years, think in terms of days. They didn't just look at the calendar and say, "It says it stops in 2012". They said "There's 1000 days left on this calender. In 1000 days it will be 2012. This calendar ends in 2012" (obviously it was more than 1000). It really doesn't matter when we started counting years on our calender, the Mayan calender ends 1000 days later relative to ours. So unless our calender changes sometimes between when we discover it and when it ends, the result will always be the same.

Ergo, the Mayan calendar ends in OUR year 2012.

Swift
2007-Oct-19, 07:24 PM
AFAIK, the Mayan calendar years were not numbered 0 (or 1) to 2012. The Mayan calandar was a set of divisions that accurately accounted for days and years based on the earth's orbit around the sun (like the Gregorian calender we use today).

For all I know, the start of each Mayan year might have been April 23rd on our calendars. I don't know how the years were broken down other than by number of days. But it's not important, because we don't talk about the Mayan calendar in terms of Mayan dates. We talk about the Mayan calendar in terms of Gergorian dates.

Actually, that is not quite right (or I don't understand your point). The Mayans most definitely counted years (and days too). If a ruler fought a battle 12 years and 63 days after the start of his reign, it was the same 12 years and 63 days in the Mayan calendar as ours. They even took care of leap years, though they did it slightly differently than we do. The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayan_calender) isn't a bad starting point. There is a very detailed, technical discussion here (Word document) (http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/maya/boehm/korelaceangl.doc).

But the key question from bmpbmp is how to align the two calendars. I know we have talked about this before and I even posted some links. I'm going to be somewhat lazy and not search them out again, but they are somewhere in the forum. I did find this explanation (http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/corr.html) of the correlation. From the linked article:

The most widely accepted correlation is a variation on the oldest effort to match the long count to the European calendar. In 1897, Joseph Goodman (an American journalist who was Mark Twain's first editor), proposed that the Maya creation date, the zero long count, was in 3114 BC. Goodman's correlation was supported by the work of a Yucatecan scholar, Juan Martinez, but other correlations were more popular until J. Eric Thompson revived interest in Goodman's correlation in 1927. His work was supported by the astronomical discoveries of J.E. Teeple in 1930. Thompson reviewed the evidence again in an influential study of the question in 1937. He was able to narrow down the range of possible base dates to three days. The correlation he proposed is now usually referred to as the Goodman-Martinez-Thompson (GMT) correlation. The base dates he identified are correlation constants used to convert long counts to European calendar dates:

11 August 3114 BC (Gregorian) 6 September 3114 BC (Julian)
12 August 3114 BC (Gregorian) 7 September 3114 BC (Julian)
13 August 3114 BC (Gregorian) 8 September 3114 BC (Julian)

Each correlation constant is also expressed as a Julian Day Number (JDN). See below.

The choice between these three dates is still hotly debated, but almost all Mayanists accept one of the versions of the GMT correlation.

Nothing, as they say, is certain except death and taxes. But the GMT correlation seems nearly as certain as any deduction from the available evidence can be. Its wide acceptance survived even the drastic revision of Maya scholarship when Thompson's intellectual hold on the field was broken by a new generation of scholars. The alternatives have few supporters among Mayanists. Yet when I searched the web for information on the correlation question, I failed to turn up any account of the arguments supporting the GMT correlation. I did, however, find defenses of at least eight alternative correlations. In the result, I fear it is all too easy for new students of the Maya to get the impression that the GMT correlation is dubious, or worse, an example of academic myopia. Some internet savants even hint darkly at conspiracy


There is A TON of more information about the difficulties of the correlation on the website.

@bmpbmp - I don't mean this in a rude way, but So What. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Mayans had any particular insight into the end of the world and there is no particular reason to think that the Mayans thought anything more of the end of a Calendar Round then we did of the year 2000. Other than the potential (unfullfilled) of computer problems, the world didn't end in 2000 either. I don't see why it matters.

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-19, 07:46 PM
@bmpbmp - I don't mean this in a rude way, but So What. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Mayans had any particular insight into the end of the world and there is no particular reason to think that the Mayans thought anything more of the end of a Calendar Round then we did of the year 2000. Other than the potential (unfullfilled) of computer problems, the world didn't end in 2000 either. I don't see why it matters.

When I first saw this thread, I was hoping that there might be an excuse to get some of the 2012=doom silliness out of the way for this year. But, it looks like we'll have to wait through 2012 before this goes away.

A question though: Are any prominent groups thinking of ways to push this past 2012? As in: "No, it isn't really 2012 when bad stuff is supposed to happen, it's 2015 (or 16 or 17)."

bmpbmp
2007-Oct-19, 08:02 PM
So Swift and Van what you are trying to say then is that we are now (2007) living in the mayan 2012 year then

01101001
2007-Oct-19, 08:07 PM
Congratulations. This topic satisifes my flimsy criteria to be included in this list:

2003 no, 2012 si (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=03179)
2012 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=03181)
Pole shift / Planetary alignment 2012? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=07145)
2012 alignment question (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=09421)
about the Mayan 2012 item (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=10214)
2012 Debunking? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=10724)
Possible asteroid impact in 2012? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=10924)
2012 asteroid? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=13592)
We don't have to worry about 2012! (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=16490)
More on 2012 from India Daily (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=16709)
2012 Completion of conspiracy? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=17667)
Here's what's REALLY going to happen in 2012... (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18322)
crop circles, Planet X and 2012 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18375)
Planet X, crop circles and 2012 cataclysma (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18378)
According to the Mayans, what will happen on 23rd Dec. 2012? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18757)
More 2012 Nonsense (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=19201)
NEO 2012? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=20191)
Dangerous NEO in 2012? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=20539)
Christmas 2012 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=23941)
2012 mayan calender end of world (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=30892)
Regarding the supposed polar shift/new ice age in 2012 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=31452)
New 2012 threat? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32413)
2012 look at this thing on the sun (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35462)
Russian Expert Predicts Global Cooling from 2012 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38978)
Pole shift idea origins (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=43775)
Dec 20 2012 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46117)
2012 Stuff (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=51021)
Horizon Project-New End of World Scare? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=53788)
Date: December 21st 2012 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=53831)
Earth passing thru Galactic center in 2012 - didn't that already happen? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=53904)
2012: What do you think well happen (if anything) (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=53924)
So what will we see in 2012? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=54404)
Galactic Tsunami? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=54418)
Plane of the ecliptic of the galaxy? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=55312)
Earth's Magnetic Field & 2012 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=55386)
2012? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=56513)
Any truth to this? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=58039)
How can the sun be aligned with Galactic centre? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=63109)
the whole 2012 poles flip nonsense (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=63449)
Planet X Official Advertisement (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=65831)
What year are we in (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=66055)

Skyfire
2007-Oct-19, 08:10 PM
This is the 44th year of the Argosian Epoch.

Aren't we also in the year AE62? (Atomic Era)

What about LF38? (Lunar Footprint era)

Or IA30?(Interstellar Age - 1977 being the year Voyager 1 was launched on it's journey to interstellar space and is still operational ... just!) (P.S. I know Pioneer was launched earlier - late 60's?? - but for me true interstellar travel was achieved by Voyager as it is still working even now ... I think!)


:) :) :)

Fazor
2007-Oct-19, 08:17 PM
Swift: any calender is counting years, that's what a calendar does. What I meant was simply that the mayan calandar (AFIAK) doesn't end in the mayan calander year 2012, but that it ends in our Georgian Calandar year 2012.

That was based off the assumption that out of all these people claiming the world will end in 2012 based on the Mayan calendar, at least one of them would have been smart enough to realize that the Mayan 2012 is different than the Georgian 2012...

...but I will admit that's not necessarily a safe assumption.

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-19, 08:40 PM
So Swift and Van what you are trying to say then is that we are now (2007) living in the mayan 2012 year then

I'm saying that it is irrelevant. I'm saying it would be nice if the folks that have managed to get themselves worried over a funny interpretation of an old calendar system had an excuse to give it up now, rather than continue on about it for several more years.

laurele
2007-Oct-19, 08:47 PM
Even the Gregorian calendar is only based on a rough estimate of the birth of Jesus and is probably off by four to twelve years. The western dating system was created in the sixth century by a monk, Dennis the Diminutive, whose main goal was trying to determine a formula for the date of Easter. His estimate for Jesus' birth has to be at least four years too late because it is known that King Herod died in 4 BCE. It could be twelve years late if one considers the possibility that the star of Bethlehem was really a close approach of Halley's Comet, which is known to have occurred in 11 BCE. And with no "zero year" between 1 BCE and 1 CE it is forever mathematically incorrect, which is why the question of whether centuries start in the years 00 or 01 can never be answered.

redshifter
2007-Oct-19, 08:56 PM
I still say it's the year 65,000,000 AEE (After Extiction Event)...

cjl
2007-Oct-19, 09:11 PM
Or ALMEE (After Last Major Extinction Event)

JayUtah
2007-Oct-19, 09:27 PM
Or year 5 BEOW (Before End Of World).

Aristocrates
2007-Oct-19, 09:29 PM
bmpbmp, here's a little scenario to illustrate the point.

Homestar Runner went to Bubs' Concession Stand and asked for a hot dog. Bubs told him it would be ready in 50 years. Bubs was using the Mayan calendar, which told him the year was currently 12732, so the hotdog would be ready when Bubs' calendar said it was 12782. Homestar Runner looked at his own calendar, the one we use, and saw that the current year was 1957, so he reasoned that the hot dog would be ready in the year 2007. He stood in line for 10 minutes, then heard a news announcement on the radio. It said that all the calendars we use were wrong, and the year is actually 2007 already.

Is the hot dog ready?

Edited: just changed the years a bit.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-19, 09:31 PM
These are serious questions.

What does it matter if the calendar is off five years? Is there a major scientific of historical breakthrough waiting if someone proves that the calendar is off five years? And who cares which calendar is off?

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-19, 09:55 PM
It all depends on which calendar you use. If our beggining date was the First Flight, it would be the year 104.

Swift
2007-Oct-19, 10:05 PM
So Swift and Van what you are trying to say then is that we are now (2007) living in the mayan 2012 year then
I am absolutely not saying that. I am saying by the most widely accepted correlation between the Mayan calendar and our own, that the Mayan date of 13,0,0,0,0 in the long count (the start of the next baktun in the Mayan long count - if you don't know what that means, check this (http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/calnote.htm) out) will happen on our date of December 23, 2012. But I am also saying that there is not a complete agreement among those who study the issue, though I have seen no reference to it being off by five years (most of the differences are a couple of days). You need to look at the links in my previous post if you want the details.

But, most importantly, I am saying (as did Van) that IT DOESN'T MATTER. There is absolutely no evidence that there is anything significant to 13,0,0,0,0 in the Mayan calendar, particularly regarding the end of the world or any similar event. The Mayans were amazingly brilliant people, but they had no magic insight to this, any more than the creators of the Julian or Gregorian calendar (see laurele's post above). And last I checked, the world didn't end in 2000, 1900, or 1000 AD.

The Mayan civilization ended around 900 AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization#The_Maya_.22collapse.22), so by their calender or our own, the end came a long time ago.

bmpbmp
2007-Oct-19, 11:08 PM
ok i think i may be dumb cause i am still confused...lol

JayUtah
2007-Oct-19, 11:31 PM
I'll try to simplify.

Calendars each just start counting at some arbitrary day. To connect one calendar to another, you need a single day for which each calendar gives a date. So you need a historical record that says "June 16, 1320 A.D. is also Smarch 43rd, 24,601 on Bob's Calendar." If you have that, and you know how each calendar counts days, months, weeks, years, fortnights, or whatever, then you can count forward and backward in each calendar to reconcile any date.

IIRC, the work done to connect the Maya calendar to our Gregorian calendar was all done in relatively modern dates. So it doesn't matter that we now think Jesus may have been born in some year other than the Zero Year of the Gregorian Calendar. As long as we keep using the same "wrong" dates that the scientists worked out, the correspondence holds between the Maya and Gregorian calendars.

So the "magic" date at which the Maya calendar's odometer rolls over is still 2012 A.D. in our current "wrong" reckoning.

If you want to reset the origin of the Gregorian calendar to account for the new postulated birth year of Jesus, then that might make this year 2012 V.A.D (vero anno Domini, in the "real year of the Lord"). But then you'd have to go back and re-do the connection to the Maya calendar according to the new reckoning, which would change the "magic" Maya date to 2017 V.A.D.

No matter how you slice and dice the Gregorian calendar, the "magic" Maya date is still five years away from now.

Now there's a separate issue whether the Maya writings actually predict that something dire will happen when their calendar rolls over. The old writings say that the last time something Mayanly icky happened, it was on a previous calendar rollover. That doesn't mean the next calendar rollover portends something disastrous.

Then of course you may choose not to believe Mayan mysticism at all.

But this year doesn't "really" have to be 2012. It's 2007 because we say it is.

Gillianren
2007-Oct-20, 12:00 AM
And just to emphasize, the Mayan calendar doesn't end in five years anyway; it rolls over. There are enough different counts of calendars out there that some kind of rollover happens all the time, but we don't know about it, because we don't know those calendars. Seven years ago, there was a rollover of the Gregorian calendar. People predicted the end of the world. Nothing happened. Five years from now, there will be a rollover of the Mayan calendar. People are predicting the end of the world. There is no reason to assume that anything will happen. When the Jewish or Islamic calendars next roll over, we'll go through the same thing again.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-20, 12:05 AM
The Post-Hyborian Age, by Crom!

stutefish
2007-Oct-20, 12:39 AM
So is the Mayan calendar synchronized to specific celestial events, some of which haven't happened yet, which is how we know that it hasn't "ended" yet?

Nowhere Man
2007-Oct-20, 02:11 AM
bmpbmp is just looking for something to worry about. My friend, if you want to worry, put on a blindfold and try to cross a busy street. That will give you plenty of worry, mostly during and hopefully after.

To summarize: The Mayan calendar rolls over (not ends) in a little over five years from now (exact date is subject to some debate). No matter what we call our current date, be it 2007, 2012, or 28,734,873, it's still five years away from *now*.

Fred

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-20, 02:13 AM
The Post-Hyborian Age, by Crom!

And Mitra!

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-20, 02:13 AM
So is the Mayan calendar synchronized to specific celestial events, some of which haven't happened yet, which is how we know that it hasn't "ended" yet?No.

It's synchronized like our calendar is synchronized. Our "thing" happens every year. Their thing happens every day--and we use that one too. They count the days using base twenty arithmetic, except their second digit only goes to 17 instead of 19, so 1 0 0 is 360 days, about one year. 1 0 0 0 0 would then be 144,000 days, or about 395 years. They apparently started counting sometime in 3114 BC.

The Popol Vuh says the just previous creation ended on 12 19 19 17 19, which was the day before 13 0 0 0 0 (13 x 395 years, which happens to correspond to our December 21, 2012). IF this current creation cycle follows the pattern of the last creation cycle, it will end on Dec. 20, 2012. Kinda like a huge Friday the thirteenth, where everyone has a bad day.

Nick Theodorakis
2007-Oct-20, 03:02 AM
Posted on rec.humor.funny:



According to the Jewish calendar, the year is 5768. According to the Chinese
calendar, the year is 4702.

That means that for 1,063 years the Jewish people went without Chinese food.

These were known as the Dark Ages.


Nick

ETA: w00t! I'm not a "Junior Member" anymore!!111!!

Maksutov
2007-Oct-20, 04:58 AM
That means that for 1,063 years the Jewish people went without Chinese food....It also means that for 1063 years the Jewish people weren't hungry again an hour after eating.

All calendars should start from the day MSG was discovered.

Re the original question "What Year are we in[?]", we're in the same year as everyone else. Only the number lines have been changed to protect the guilty and hide the Illuminati. The world will end at the same time for everyone, except for the states of Arizona (with the exception of the Navajo Nation) and Hawaii and the territories of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, and certain remote parts of Canada.

Maksutov
2007-Oct-20, 05:05 AM
[edit]ETA: w00t! I'm not a "Junior Member" anymore!!111!!Welcome to the Senior Class! Eventually you may be eligible to learn the secret handshake.

Tobin Dax
2007-Oct-20, 06:50 AM
Posted on rec.humor.funny:


According to the Jewish calendar, the year is 5768. According to the Chinese
calendar, the year is 4702.

That means that for 1,063 years the Jewish people went without Chinese food.

These were known as the Dark Ages.
Which provides the point. Our calendar started 2007 years ago. We count forward from then. The Jewish calendar started 5768 years ago. They count forward from then. The Chinese calendar started 4702 years ago. They count forward from then. The Mayan calendar started over something like 5000 years ago, and counts forward until it "ends." It "ends" in 5 years.

So the "end" of the Mayan calendar is in our year 2012.
So the "end" of the Mayan calendar is in the Jewish year 5773.
So the "end" of the Mayan calendar is in the Chinese year 4707.
With your friend's correction that it is now 2012, the "end" of the Mayan calendar is in 2017, still 5 years from now.
In Argos-land, the end of the Mayan calendar is in year 49, still 5 years from now.

Do you understand, bmpbmp?

Donnie B.
2007-Oct-20, 11:18 AM
ETA: w00t! I'm not a "Junior Member" anymore!!111!!
Congratulations. Be sure to use your "member" well.

BertL
2007-Oct-20, 11:59 AM
I'll try to simplify.

Calendars each just start counting at some arbitrary day.
Jay, you lost me on "arbitrary".

vonmazur
2007-Oct-20, 04:03 PM
Dionesius Exegesis made a little mistake, and look what happened!! All this hoopla over an ancient calendar, and the woo woos are raking in the loot!!

Dale

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-20, 06:31 PM
And just to emphasize, the Mayan calendar doesn't end in five years anyway; it rolls over. There are enough different counts of calendars out there that some kind of rollover happens all the time, but we don't know about it, because we don't know those calendars. Seven years ago, there was a rollover of the Gregorian calendar. People predicted the end of the world. Nothing happened. Five years from now, there will be a rollover of the Mayan calendar. People are predicting the end of the world. There is no reason to assume that anything will happen. When the Jewish or Islamic calendars next roll over, we'll go through the same thing again.
As I said in a previous thread.
Bad Archeology runs rampant.

Fazor
2007-Oct-20, 06:32 PM
I'll try to simplify.

Calendars each just start counting at some arbitrary day...snip

Thanks Jay, that's exactly what I was trying to say (and i mean that whole post, but didn't want to take up that much space with the quote), but was having such a hectic day it was affecting my...brain....thinky....wordy...abilities. Fortunately now it's the weekend, and between football and the Indians, and the beer that goes with, I'll have a whole different reason to lack...brain...thinky.... :wanders off:

Tobin Dax
2007-Oct-22, 09:23 PM
bmpbmp, have we cured your confusion yet? Or are you still confused about this idea?

bmpbmp
2007-Oct-22, 11:14 PM
I am still trying to grasp it but I think I got the jist of it

thanks

novaderrik
2007-Oct-23, 12:05 AM
i'm 5 days from finishing my 33rd year on this earth (i turn 33 on Sunday), and let's say that you have completed your 20th year (meaning you are turning 20).
we both exist in the year that is numbered 2007 on the Gregorian calendar, even tho we are different ages.
i don't know if this helps- maybe someone with more of that fancy book learnin' can help me out with what i'm trying to say...

Fazor
2007-Oct-23, 01:56 PM
maybe someone with more of that fancy book learnin' can help me out with what i'm trying to say...
Well, I think Jay said it best, but I'll give it another stab.

When they say the two calanders are compatable, they don't mean they both start on the same day/year/whatever. They mean that they both use the same units of measure; in otherwords days/years.

Therefor, if the Mayan calender itself litterally "ended" in 2012; since the start date of the calender is in no relation to our calender, gods knows what year that would be for us. After some examining, that's not exactly how they kept track of the date anyway. And as Gillian mentioned, it's not the "end" of the calender...it's cirular in nature, it just restarts.

But at risk of making just as little sense as I did on my first attempts, I'll defer to this website which has some very good information about the Mayan calendar. The Mayan Calendar (http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html)

bmpbmp
2007-Oct-23, 06:14 PM
Tidbit of information, not sure if points are valid or not

http://www.incapabledesetaire.com/edito/secretwash.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fI_5okO6RE

Fazor
2007-Oct-23, 06:34 PM
Can't watch video here at work (bandwidth issues), but as for the first link;

Aside from the fact that it's not astronomy related, it's just the same old "secret evil organization" bunk.

For starters, most of the secret organizations that get mentioned are not secret, or else we wouldn't know about them. Some simply do not exists.

As for city layout and bulding archetecture that symbolizes this or that; go talk to any architect or civil engineer and see if they studied achient archetecture. MOST of what we do today are based on things we did in the past. So why is it suprising then that themes from the past can be found in modern building? :shrug:

edit: I read some more from the first link. Is this the guy you're having your discussion with about the mayan calendar? If so, I'd just shake my head a walk away if I were you (and probably follow that with a good stiff drink). It's pure nonsense. I don't know how else to say it.

bmpbmp
2007-Oct-23, 06:42 PM
actually its 3 part video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t09Mtn_D_K0&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgwIU_ROUEI&mode=related&search=911%20conspiracy%20alex%20jones%20david%20i cke%20washington%20illuminati%20masons%20fre

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fI_5okO6RE&mode=related&search=911%20conspiracy%20alex%20jones%20david%20i cke%20washington%20illuminati%20masons%20fre

I think he is trying to explain about what he said on the site

http://www.incapabledesetaire.com/edito/secretwash.htm

Fazor
2007-Oct-23, 07:01 PM
Well I don't need his youtube explinations to tell me the basic premis is wrong anyway. It all hinges mainly on the fact that Washington was formed by members who were all part of the evil and secret organization, the Masons. But they're not evil, nor all that secretive.

Besides, why would a secret organization who's power hinges so much on the fact that "the general public won't know we're in cahoots" plaster all these clues all over us currency and across the Washington D.C. facade? That's like saying, "Look at us! We're secret and evil, and none of you will ever find out! To see how secret and evil we are, visit us on the web at www.secretandevil.com". It just doesn't make any sense

Swift
2007-Oct-23, 08:11 PM
I second everything Fazor said (including, I'm not watching the videos for various reasons). But I can't see any of the pictures on the website, so it is hard to get the particulars.

Even given that, it sounds like a whole bunch of woo-woo stuff mixed together. What the heck does the Mayan calendar have to do with the Masons? And how did either know anything about 9/11? It is just too silly to seriously analysize.

Tobin Dax
2007-Oct-24, 08:30 AM
It is just too silly to seriously analysize.
But that's why it's true! :shifty:

Noclevername
2007-Oct-24, 06:43 PM
Besides, why would a secret organization who's power hinges so much on the fact that "the general public won't know we're in cahoots" plaster all these clues all over us currency and across the Washington D.C. facade? That's like saying, "Look at us! We're secret and evil, and none of you will ever find out! To see how secret and evil we are, visit us on the web at www.secretandevil.com.

:lol::lol::lol:

Magnificent! Your post should be required reading for all CTers!

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-24, 06:47 PM
:lol::lol::lol:

Magnificent! Your post should be required reading for all CTers!

Reading? You must be kidding. Maybe if you made a video on YouTube.

PetersCreek
2007-Oct-24, 06:58 PM
Besides, why would a secret organization who's power hinges so much on the fact that "the general public won't know we're in cahoots" plaster all these clues all over us currency and across the Washington D.C. facade?

<CT froth>

'Cuz...'cuz...'cuz...otherwise, the total lack of evidence of the conspiracy would make it glaringly obvious that the conspiracy was being COVERED UP!!!!! So they planted just enough subtle evidence to make a few ENLIGHTENED and suspicious people look like nutcases to the rest of the SHEEPLE!!!11 And it couldn't be fake evidence either 'cuz that would lead to the REAL evidence so there isn't any real evidence either but it's true evidence all the same if only you can see the TRUTH!!!!!!

</CT froth>

I feel so dirty.

Fazor
2007-Oct-24, 09:26 PM
Have I ever mentioned how much I hate the word "sheeple"? Which is in no small part due to the fact that anyone who makes decisions based on the opposite of what "the man" says is just as much of a sheep as anyone else? You're still basing your opinions and actions on someone else's thoughts and not your own. Oh well. Hypocracy is a conspiracy too, I guess.

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-24, 10:51 PM
It is a useful word in internet discussions, though: When somebody says, without joking, "sheeple," it gives you a good indication that there is no point in further discussion with them. You might continue for the lurkers, but nothing is going to change their mind. "Pseudoskeptic" is another word along similar lines.

Fazor
2007-Oct-25, 01:48 PM
It is a useful word in internet discussions, though: When somebody says, without joking, "sheeple," it gives you a good indication that there is no point in further discussion with them.
That's a good point. It's kinda like an internet forum fire-alarm; as soon as it gets pulled you know it's hazardous to your health if you stick around.

Kesh
2007-Oct-27, 08:08 PM
I think we need a new law regarding the phrase "sheeple" in conspiracy threads, along the lines of Godwin's Law.

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-27, 11:29 PM
That's a good point. It's kinda like an internet forum fire-alarm; as soon as it gets pulled you know it's hazardous to your health if you stick around.
Really? Even if I say "All of the people who believe RCH are sheeple" ?

Noclevername
2007-Oct-28, 03:38 AM
They actually used "sheeple" in a very disturbing car ad a while ago. If I could remember what car it was for I'd google it. The fact that I don't means they failed, THEY FAILED! Ahahaha!
...

Time for my meds.

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-28, 04:11 AM
I know the commercial you're referring to. I noticed the commercial because of the animation and the word, "sheeple," but it took a couple of times before I even realized it was a car commercial. I don't remember the brand either. It probably would be easy to find it by googling, but I don't want to. :)

Noclevername
2007-Oct-28, 04:13 AM
I know the commercial you're referring to. I noticed the commercial because of the animation and the word, "sheeple," but it took a couple of times before I even realized it was a car commercial. I don't remember the brand either. It probably would be easy to find it by googling, but I don't want to. :)

It's one of those "commercials" where, if you miss the last five seconds when they mention the product, you have no idea what they're advertising.

Kesh
2007-Oct-28, 06:35 PM
Really? Even if I say "All of the people who believe RCH are sheeple" ?

yes. It's an insulting, derogatory term that's pulled out when you just want to slap other people in the face.

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-28, 09:11 PM
yes. It's an insulting, derogatory term that's pulled out when you just want to slap other people in the face.
Good thing that I didn't mean it.
The people who believe RCH are simply misguided and I pray for them every night.

Fazor
2007-Oct-29, 03:02 PM
I know the commercial you're referring to. I noticed the commercial because of the animation and the word, "sheeple," but it took a couple of times before I even realized it was a car commercial. I don't remember the brand either. It probably would be easy to find it by googling, but I don't want to. :)

Oh, those claymation things? There was a series of two or three. Lambs being led to the slaughter type deal. And I had forgotten them completely. They didn't seem to last long either.

I want to say it was for the Scion. That's the car that fits the theme (according to the manufacturer anyway) of "be different". So we should all be different by buying the same car, then paying even more to customize said car. Riiiiiiight. :)

Noclevername
2007-Oct-29, 03:10 PM
I want to say it was for the Scion. That's the car that fits the theme (according to the manufacturer anyway) of "be different". So we should all be different by buying the same car, then paying even more to customize said car. Riiiiiiight. :)

"Be different! Be a rebel! Buy our mass-produced product!"

Duh, okay.

Swift
2007-Oct-29, 03:31 PM
"Be different! Be a rebel! Buy our mass-produced product!"

Duh, okay.
Reminds me an old Steve Martin stand-up bit:

Martin: "Let's repeat the non-conformist oath! I promise to be different!"
Audience (en mass): "I promise to be different!"
Martin: "I promise to be unique!"
Audience: "I promise to be unique!"
Martin: "I promise not to repeat things, other people say!"
Audience: <silence>
Martin: "Good!"
:lol:

Fazor
2007-Oct-29, 03:36 PM
Ah, good 'ol Steve Martin. The Jerk was on tv the other day. I love that movie. Only got to watch up until he was trying to hitch a ride from home (first 20 min or so) and had to leave though.

The amazing part about Martin is his ad-lib ability [edit: would that be, 'adlibility'?]. There's two halariously drawn-out scenes; the one that goes something like "The first day seemed like 10 days. The second day was 8 1/2 days. The third day, well that was just a day because you had to go visit your mother. But you came back on the fourth day, so that was like 4 days." etc. etc., and the "I don't need you! All I need is this lamp! This lamp and this ash tray! This lamp and this ash tray and this chair! I need this Thermos. This lamp this ashtray the chair and this Thermos, that's all i need! And these glasses." etc. etc.

Those were both done "on the fly", and flawlessly executed. Great stuff! :)

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-30, 01:21 AM
"Be different! Be a rebel! Buy our mass-produced product!"
Hey, watch it, my dad drives a Scion!

Noclevername
2007-Oct-30, 01:27 AM
Hey, watch it, my dad drives a Scion!

But did he buy it because of a "cool" commercial, or because he thought it was a good car?

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-30, 01:30 AM
But did he buy it because of a "cool" commercial, or because he thought it was a good car?
Because it was the closest dealership with hybrids.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-30, 01:41 AM
Because it was the closest dealership with hybrids.

Well, there you go. Advertising pressure fails again.

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-30, 02:28 AM
Oh, those claymation things? There was a series of two or three. Lambs being led to the slaughter type deal. And I had forgotten them completely. They didn't seem to last long either.
:)

I only remember one. I thought it was computer animation, but who knows? I think it's pretty clear why they didn't last long. They apparently didn't make much of an impression or do a good job selling the product.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-30, 02:40 AM
They apparently didn't make much of an impression or do a good job selling the product.

That doesn't stop some ads.