The year 2012 is the newest hype with new age hippies.
My advice: Forget about it and just go on with your normal life, and you'll wake up on 22 December 2012 just like on any other day. Don't waste time on nonsense like the 2012 hype.
The original basis for this is a Mayan Calendar, which completes some sort of cycle in 2012.
The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar forms the basis for a New Age belief, first forecast by Jos� Arg�elles, that a cataclysm will take place on or about 21 December 2012, a forecast that mainstream Mayanist scholars consider a mis-interpretation.
Historically, these cycle transitions were cause for celebration, because they were milestones of renewal. But an apocalypse is much more interesting (and marketable), so as soon as someone suggested that, plenty of people have been looking for "evidence" to support the notion.
The point is simple: Buy your 2012 merchandise now, before it's too late!
(In the meantime, there's no reason to code applications that can interpret dates beyond 2012.)
I think that 8 of the 9 articles you referred to were on the same site. So I am unsurprised that they refer to the same base concepts.
It's like coming to JavaRanch and finding that we tend to refer to Sun's programming language - the fact that we tend to refer to Java a lot does not (by itself) mean that Java is the best computer language.
Being a 150 years old collector of obscure horror films of your time is no qualification to be able to accurately predict the future. I know what will happen because I have a crystal ball.
Originally posted by Mandar Khire: ... What java rancher think about this?
In another thread, you raise a question about myths being illogical and unscientific. Ay, my head spins from the paradox! Allow me a moment to regain my bearings!
In another thread, you raise a question about myths being illogical and unscientific. Ay, my head spins from the paradox! Allow me a moment to regain my bearings!
You say Paradox! :roll: Then I will say The paradox of reality is that no image is as compelling as the one which exists only in the mind's eye. [ September 14, 2008: Message edited by: Mandar Khire ]
I think that 8 of the 9 articles you referred to were on the same site. So I am unsurprised that they refer to the same base concepts.
It's like coming to JavaRanch and finding that we tend to refer to Sun's programming language - the fact that we tend to refer to Java a lot does not (by itself) mean that Java is the best computer language.
- Andrew
But Stephen Yulish PhD, Margaret Emenegger,Sol Luckman etc are different persons. I think about you, that, you don't think about every person thinks different way about same thing. So as Blaise Pascal says:- You always admire what you really don't understand. & I ask question with full of reference because, One who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; one who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. [ September 14, 2008: Message edited by: Mandar Khire ]
Originally posted by Arvind Birla: Why do you think something like this won't happen?
Because the whole thing is not more than a fantasy from a bunch of gullible new age people. There is not a single thread of real scientific evidence that anything special is going to happen on 21 December 2008.
(Let's not have a discussion here about the value of the Bible as a historically accurate description...).
Originally posted by Mandar Khire: ... But Stephen Yulish PhD, Margaret Emenegger, Sol Luckman etc are different persons...
Perhaps to an outsider. But I am unable to determine where I end and they begin. Lacking such delineation, I (we) rely on the Black Cat as our conduit to absolute truth. This is the primary function of the Large Hadron Collider, whose true Purpose will not be revealed until 2012, when Bertrand Russell returns to explain his eponymous paradox (exactly 111 years after its incarnation ).
Originally posted by Mandar Khire: But Stephen Yulish PhD, Margaret Emenegger,Sol Luckman etc are different persons.
Hmmm - perhaps. Or perhaps all 3 names are pseudonyms used by marc weber's cat to distract us from the truth of black holes. After all, on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
Originally posted by marc weber: This is the primary function of the Large Hadron Collider, whose true Purpose will not be revealed until 2012, when Bertrand Russell returns to explain his eponymous paradox (exactly 111 years after its incarnation ).
I thought the true purpose of the LHC was to develop methods of opening a black hole to the galaxy to which Elvis was abducted and getting him back!
Originally posted by Andrew Monkhouse: Or perhaps all 3 names are pseudonyms used by marc weber's cat to distract us from the truth of black holes.
Why would marc's cat need to create pseudonyms when marc, Mark and Jesper stand ready at its command to post whatever it pleases? [ September 14, 2008: Message edited by: Ulf Dittmer ]
Originally posted by Andrew Monkhouse: ...I thought the true purpose of the LHC was to develop methods of opening a black hole to the galaxy to which Elvis was abducted and getting him back! ...
Mr. Monkhouse,
Thank you for your interest in the LHC.
As you know, the projected benefits of our Mini Black Hole initiative cannot be projected -- not without resorting to cryptic notation that has no meaning. While it's still too early to make predictions of reciprocal associations with other galaxies (and the possible return of your "Elvis"), I think it's safe to say that the intangibles will outweigh the tangibles. It might even be safe to say the reverse. Either way, we're excited about the tingling sensation that's bound to ensue.
Oh, and one more thing...
As you're no doubt aware, Russell was notably contemptuous of Cantor, so if both entities should return in 2012... Well, there will be no shortage of crystal balls.
I see you have mastered the use of the shift key, showing your obvious superiority to marc who still uses lower case letters in his name.
Originally posted by marc weber: ... I think it's safe to say that the intangibles will outweigh the tangibles...
I do have one question about the statement above - as we approach the singularity, wont the tangibles, the intangibles, and everything else on this planet weight the same (and be approaching the speed of light)?
Andrew [ September 14, 2008: Message edited by: Andrew Monkhouse ]
Originally posted by Andrew Monkhouse: ...as we approach the singularity, wont the tangibles, the intangibles, and everything else on this planet weight the same...
In response to your query, Marc's cat deemed this "a most weighty subject," and retired for a brief nap, after which he had forgotten all about it.
We all have exactly 1555 days 16 hours 52 minutes and 7 seconds....6 seconds...how are you guys planning for this event...4 seconds. Keep me. 3 seconds posted okay..?
Perhaps you should use the "long count" to look what happened the last time.
Today (here still 25th of january) in the long count is:
12 K'in
19 Winal
16 Tun
0 K'atun
12 Bak'tun
or in mayan glyphs:
You see that the mayan long count is zero based.
From here to the last round would be
0 K'in
0 Winal
0 Tun
0 K'atun
12 Bak'tun
This should be then the last date of apocalypse. It was at the 20th september 1618.
End of the world? Well perhaps for some people in Bohemia: The Siege of Pilsen (or Plzeň) by the protestants started just the day before ;-)
Additional astro info:
While I'm writing this I can see planet venus just in the middle of my window...
December 12th, 2012 will bring political unity and brotherhood to Mexico. In the past, the indigenous Mayan population resented the Spanish colonists whose descendents to this day dominate the economic and political life of Mexico. After 2012 they will be greatful for the Spanish conquest since, "Otherwise we'd all be dead now."
After experience had taught me that all the usual surroundings of social life are vain and futile; seeing that none of the objects of my fears contained in themselves anything either good or bad, except in so far as the mind is affected by them......
.............it seemed unwise willingly to lose hold on what was sure for the sake of something then uncertain
(On the Improvement of the Understanding: Benedictus de Spinoza, James Gutmann.)
![[Logo]](/templates/default/mobile/images/mobile-moose.gif)
