2012 and it's consequences

[stereologist]

Is it a coincidence that the Catholic church has been studying geo-magnetism since the 17th century?

Are you saying the Catholic Church or people that were Catholic? Actually Gauss discovered the Earth's magnetic field in the early 1800s.

[Mattshark]

The suggestion of mammoths being flash frozen in ice leads me to think it is not totally impossible. Just cos a theory takes a battering does not make it incompetent. It may just not have fitted in with the common view so gets ignored and you get called a crank by your peers.

I haven't heard those expressions, could you give a brief description? Is there any scientific basis to the electric universe theory if not to the book worlds in collision?

A pole shift would not cause that, it would basically result in all large life dying very quickly, it would kill pretty much everything in all environments. There is no evidence of such in the geological record and it is not a theory, it is a claim with no basis what so ever.

Importantly, there is nothing to suggest a mammoth has been flash frozen.

Polar wander is the natural movement of the magnetic poles

Magnetic reversal is the common occurrence of the poles reversing their magnetism (and this means that at present the north pole is in fact the south pole).

[stereologist]

The suggestion of mammoths being flash frozen in ice leads me to think it is not totally impossible.

Sorry not connected to the earth's magnetic field. Flash frozen? Also not correct. Yes, there are frozen mammoths. Frozen in a flash? No.

[SlimJim22]

Thank you. I am still a little hazy on the more complex workings of gravity. I get how it works on Earth but not how it applies to other heavenly bodies. The eloctromagnetic idea sounds more plausanle to me. Who has read Worlds in Collision? From checking out more details on bibliotecpleiades (unreliablle but enjoyable source)about the author I discovered he was friends (or enemies, not sure) with Einstein and along with his more radical conclusions he also made predictions that were later discovered and could support some of his other claims.

I claimed the existence of a magnetosphere above the terrestrial ionosphere - it was discovered by Van Allen in 1958

I claimed that this magnetosphere reaches as far as the lunar orbit - it was discovered by Ness in 1964

I claimed that the interplanetary space is magnetic and the field centers on the Sun and rotates with it - it was discovered in 1960 by simultaneous observation of Pioneer V and Explorer X, one travelling around the Sun and the other around the Earth

I claimed that Jupiter sends out radio noises,5 and actually offered in writing in June 1954 to Albert Einstein to stake our protracted debate as to whether, besides inertia and gravitation, electromagnetic interactions participate in celestial mechanics: Does or does not Jupiter send out radio noises? - and Einstein wrote his note of disbelief on the margin of my letter.

His work would never have been accepted because he was going against convention. You can't honestly criticize his book until you''ve read it.

Professor V. Eshleman of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, obviously astounded, wrote on September 11, 1970, to a news-writer:

“I am completely mystified as to how Velikovsky reaches his conclusions. It is almost as though he does it through will power alone...”

But could he, by will power alone, initiate Jupiter’s noises?

[stereologist]

When I was young my father handed me the book "Worlds in Collision" and suggested I give it a read. I did and asked my father many questions about the book and its claims. He eventually handed me a book with a scientific rebuttal of Velikovsky's book. I was surprised to see two books claiming to be correct that were so different.

This was a simple lesson my father wanted to teach me. Not everything printed is true. He wanted me to see that sincerely and well written books can often be hogwash. The internet appears to be well fed with baloney. In fact, it appears to be more baloney than correct information at times.

[Mattshark]

Thank you. I am still a little hazy on the more complex workings of gravity. I get how it works on Earth but not how it applies to other heavenly bodies. The eloctromagnetic idea sounds more plausanle to me. Who has read Worlds in Collision? From checking out more details on bibliotecpleiades (unreliablle but enjoyable source)about the author I discovered he was friends (or enemies, not sure) with Einstein and along with his more radical conclusions he also made predictions that were later discovered and could support some of his other claims.

His work would never have been accepted because he was going against convention. You can't honestly criticize his book until you''ve read it.

Professor V. Eshleman of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, obviously astounded, wrote on September 11, 1970, to a news-writer:

“I am completely mystified as to how Velikovsky reaches his conclusions. It is almost as though he does it through will power alone...”

But could he, by will power alone, initiate Jupiter’s noises?

Velikovsky's work is not accepted because it goes against all evidence. It is just incredibly wrong.

[stereologist]

His work would never have been accepted because he was going against convention.

This is a claim from wackos with wacky ideas to fend off the complaints.

SlimJim maybe sometime you could see a scientific meeting and walk through what are called the posters section. This is where people are provided a small space and a board where they can exhibit a poster on their current work. It is a great place to get feedback and ideas and to learn what others are doing. Let's just say that it's not always polite. So even conventional notions get slammed around. On the other hand someone can get carried away and overlook a simple issue. At the poster the defender learns how to improve their work and make it more likely to be published even if the work suggests conventional wisdom is wrong.

SlimJim I believe that there have been 3 times in which Nobel winning work has been shown to be wrong. That happens. Is there any merit then to Velikovsky and a host of other odd claims in light of this? No. The claims are obviously wrong. In these 3 cases people thought these were true ideas, but further research has taught people more about the world we live in.

[SlimJim22]

When I was young my father handed me the book "Worlds in Collision" and suggested I give it a read. I did and asked my father many questions about the book and its claims. He eventually handed me a book with a scientific rebuttal of Velikovsky's book. I was surprised to see two books claiming to be correct that were so different.

This was a simple lesson my father wanted to teach me. Not everything printed is true. He wanted me to see that sincerely and well written books can often be hogwash. The internet appears to be well fed with baloney. In fact, it appears to be more baloney than correct information at times.

You're father was a wise man. Don't beieve anything when you read it. Study further and see what works best for you I suggest. Just cos a load of academics dismiss something doesn't make it hogwash necessarily. Everyone has their own agenda and historically the establishment doesn't like to change unless it has to. The weight of opinion in this case would have to be enormous to make the paradigm shift needed, so is unlikely. Science needs to be held to account ultimately by these radical views. They must disprove them and hopefully learn new things along the way. Surely there is no harm in that?

[stereologist]

Here is a simple example. Remember I am trying to recall something I read a long while back. There is the claim that Jupiter passes so close to the earth that the earth stops turning and then turns the other way. This takes place in the span of a day. The equator is turned at 1000mph. Stopping the earth means that objects at the equator would feel the earth suddenly being slowed down and then sped up to that speed again, but in the opposite direction. The crust sits on the mantle. The energy to stop the crust and get it going in the opposite direction would involve slippage at the interface that should have melted the crust. End of life on earth.

[stereologist]

Study further and see what works best for you I suggest. Just cos a load of academics dismiss something doesn't make it hogwash necessarily. Everyone has their own agenda and historically the establishment doesn't like to change unless it has to. The weight of opinion in this case would have to be enormous to make the paradigm shift needed, so is unlikely. Science needs to be held to account ultimately by these radical views. They must disprove them and hopefully learn new things along the way. Surely there is no harm in that?

Slim you are again falling for the false claim used by the wackos.

This is not a matter of what "works best for you." The claim that the "establishment doesn't like to change unless it has to" is nonsense. Science is in a constant flux. There are some basic well established principles in every discipline. But there is plenty that is unknown. That is why there are so many people involved in the sciences today. Ideas such as Velikovsky's, Von Daniken's, and so forth begin by misrepresenting or outright lying about the well established principles. Science does not have to "disprove them". Science asks for these ideas to be proven.

Let me mention another example. Remember cold fusion? Some researchers put forth the claim that they had succeeded in performing cold fusion in the lab using nothing more than chemistry. It took very little time for people familiar with fusion to ask about certain effects such as why they didn't die from neutrons released during fusion. Instead of following the normal procedures and going to a conference and showing their evidence and getting feedback these 2 destroyed their careers by staging a press conference. And you ask, "Surely there is no harm in that?"

Harm comes to all sorts of people. The average person gets conned into buying stocks in companies purporting to build free energy devices. People die from taking quack medicines.

[SlimJim22]

Slim you are again falling for the false claim used by the wackos.

This is not a matter of what "works best for you." The claim that the "establishment doesn't like to change unless it has to" is nonsense. Science is in a constant flux. There are some basic well established principles in every discipline. But there is plenty that is unknown. That is why there are so many people involved in the sciences today. Ideas such as Velikovsky's, Von Daniken's, and so forth begin by misrepresenting or outright lying about the well established principles. Science does not have to "disprove them". Science asks for these ideas to be proven.

Let me mention another example. Remember cold fusion? Some researchers put forth the claim that they had succeeded in performing cold fusion in the lab using nothing more than chemistry. It took very little time for people familiar with fusion to ask about certain effects such as why they didn't die from neutrons released during fusion. Instead of following the normal procedures and going to a conference and showing their evidence and getting feedback these 2 destroyed their careers by staging a press conference. And you ask, "Surely there is no harm in that?"

Harm comes to all sorts of people. The average person gets conned into buying stocks in companies purporting to build free energy devices. People die from taking quack medicines.

Freewill dictates people will do what they like and they invariably do. Those two guys were hasty but Velikovsky was deliberately discredited despite his excellent research. It totally depends on what works for you. Our perceptions are subjective, just cos you are measuring objects does not make you objective. Our understanding is based on what we can measure. I'd hazzard to guess there is an awful lot that we have not measured or observed yet like the higgs bozon for example. If there are celestial phenomena ahead we may have to reshape our views of the electromagnetic model

which will upset a lot of people who make their livings out of denying it. I am not a scientist and am not predicting any catastrophe, I am open to new interpretations always so don't think I have made the mistake of drawing my final conclusions just yet

[stereologist]

Freewill dictates people will do what they like and they invariably do. Those two guys were hasty but Velikovsky was deliberately discredited despite his excellent research. It totally depends on what works for you. Our perceptions are subjective, just cos you are measuring objects does not make you objective. Our understanding is based on what we can measure. I'd hazzard to guess there is an awful lot that we have not measured or observed yet like the higgs bozon for example. If there are celestial phenomena ahead we may have to reshape our views of the electromagnetic model

which will upset a lot of people who make their livings out of denying it. I am not a scientist and am not predicting any catastrophe, I am open to new interpretations always so don't think I have made the mistake of drawing my final conclusions just yet

Velikovsky did poor research. He published rubbish. His claims were as easy to show wrong as the Fleischmann and Pons. V wasn't hasty; he was dismissive of proper analyses.

People do not make money out of denying theories. Again, a claim used by wackos to deflect valid comments. The problem is that these so-called alternative ideas fail because they violate the simple issues, the well established body of knowledge that science has painstakingly developed over centuries.

Our understandings are not always measured. Historically biology did not measure. It was a descriptive science. Things have changed in the last 100 years. Now measurement is more common. Many experiments can be of the sort: if you do A does B happen. That's a yes/no response.

[sepulchrave]

Thank you. I am still a little hazy on the more complex workings of gravity. I get how it works on Earth but not how it applies to other heavenly bodies.

Gravity works the same everywhere. In the context of our solar system, it can be pretty much described as following:

F_g = m d²_tr = - G M m r r^-3

Where F_g is the gravitational force vector, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of object generating the gravitational field, m is the mass of the object under consideration, r is the vector between them, and d²_t is a short form for the second derivative with respect to time operator.

In 3D free space, there are basically 2 categories of solutions to the above equation: straight lines (i.e. getting pulled directly towards each other) or elliptical orbits.

In 1D free space, there is only one solution: a straight line (i.e. getting pulled directly towards each other). The differences between the 3D and 1D solutions to the above equation is often lost on people who do not know vector calculus, and they erroneously think that the only possibility is to fall directly towards a gravitational source.

The eloctromagnetic idea sounds more plausanle to me.

It is completely not plausible as a substitute for gravity. This is because electromagnetism is an opposite-attractive force, while gravity is an equal-attractive force. Consider the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon. In (conventional) gravity they can all attract each other normally. If the forces were electromagnetic, 2 of them could attract each other (i.e. by having different charges, or different dipole alignment) but the third would have to be repelled by one of them. This is not a stable situation.

You can't honestly criticize his book until you''ve read it.

Sure, I will agree to that, on one condition. Everyone who postulates or supports an `unconventional' theory for something must read all the textbooks and papers that support the conventional view. After all, you can't criticize the mainstream unless you've read up on the entire subject.

Edited January 8, 2010 by sepulchrave

[SlimJim22]

Gravity works the same everywhere. In the context of our solar system, it can be pretty much described as following:

F_g = m d²_tr = - G M m r r^-3

Where F_g is the gravitational force vector, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of object generating the gravitational field, m is the mass of the object under consideration, r is the vector between them, and d²_t is a short form for the second derivative with respect to time operator.

In 3D free space, there are basically 2 categories of solutions to the above equation: straight lines (i.e. getting pulled directly towards each other) or elliptical orbits.

In 1D free space, there is only one solution: a straight line (i.e. getting pulled directly towards each other). The differences between the 3D and 1D solutions to the above equation is often lost on people who do not know vector calculus, and they erroneously think that the only possibility is to fall directly towards a gravitational source.

It is completely not plausible as a substitute for gravity. This is because electromagnetism is an opposite-attractive force, while gravity is an equal-attractive force. Consider the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon. In (conventional) gravity they can all attract each other normally. If the forces were electromagnetic, 2 of them could attract each other (i.e. by having different charges, or different dipole alignment) but the third would have to be repelled by one of them. This is not a stable situation.

Sure, I will agree to that, on one condition. Everyone who postulates or supports an `unconventional' theory for something must read all the textbooks and papers that support the conventional view. After all, you can't criticize the mainstream unless you've read up on the entire subject.

True.

However, physics, science in general is not really my forte. Meta physics makes more sense to me right now and thats only cos it makes no sense.

My areas of study have been religion, the criminal mind, film and business. I am here to learn and bat for the alternative view. Though I am always prepared to admit I don't know what I am talking about as in the case of gravity.

[stereologist]

I recall a physics book in which the author describes the quest for the cities of gold. The author suggests that at time the quest for the cities of gold in Texas was a possibility. Since that time Texas hasbecome so well known that it is ridiculous to go looking for the cities of gold today.

These so-called alternative theories try to rewrite that which is so well known. This is unlike real science in which the discussions are on the frontiers of new knowledge.

[stereologist]

SlimJim you might find books on the history of science much more interesting than science itself. A good read might be some of the books by Gould. Also the video series by Attenborough in which he follows the history of fossil discoveries demonstrates the twists and turns in science. It shows how an incorrect thought is improve by the collection of more data. Eventually a better picture emerges. Is the story done? No. More information continues to improve the understanding of the world about us everyday.

There is a big difference between science and some of the "softer" subjects you mentioned. First, science is decidable. There is a way to determine if the idea is right or wrong. An idea that cannot be tested cannot be a part of science. Many woo believers claim their beliefs are untestable and still are adamant that these ideas are scientific. Sorry - doesn't work that way.

[SlimJim22]

SlimJim you might find books on the history of science much more interesting than science itself. A good read might be some of the books by Gould. Also the video series by Attenborough in which he follows the history of fossil discoveries demonstrates the twists and turns in science. It shows how an incorrect thought is improve by the collection of more data. Eventually a better picture emerges. Is the story done? No. More information continues to improve the understanding of the world about us everyday.

There is a big difference between science and some of the "softer" subjects you mentioned. First, science is decidable. There is a way to determine if the idea is right or wrong. An idea that cannot be tested cannot be a part of science. Many woo believers claim their beliefs are untestable and still are adamant that these ideas are scientific. Sorry - doesn't work that way.

Sure except occassionally something is stumbled upon that was thought to be myth previously like the crystal caves of Belize or the shroud of Turin. Though I am not a christian in the strictest sense I don't discount the Bible as fiction. Everything is there for a reason. You can think of them as soft if you like, in most cases they are. However, there is a chance that clues of a scientific nature are encoded in the Bible which could help us understand potential changes to the planet. For example do you consider tales from Enoch and Jasher to be fictional accounts, refer to Cro Magnon or something else. Granted they are Apocrypha but for me that makes them more credible as people obviously didn't want them in the public consciousness.

As you say science os only able to study what it can test. Just as we haven't experienced something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I am here to provide logical argument that I hope will be criticzed or supported with evidence to gives a better idea as to its feasability. Often the best advances have come from leftfield, people willing to push theories to their extreme, they may be wrong but new finds can be discovered.

[Piney]

Did any of you actually call this guy out and denounced him to the world as a "fake native" (for lack of a better word)?

There is stuff written all over about him but as soon as the Comanches themselves denounced him he appeared on the History Channel as their spokeperson (The History Channel makes me ill with other "road apples" also). Did you ever hear the old saying "Liars prosper"?

Lapiche

[stereologist]

There are lots and lots of caves in Guatemala, Mexico, and Belize. Some have even provided information about the Mayan culture. I don't think the Shroud of Turin is real. I think it is a forgery. I don't think that scientific information is encoded in the bible. Many of the biblical accounts do not match archaeological findings.

Just as we haven't experienced something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Let me ask you this. If you hold a rock in your hand does it drop, stay int he air where you let it go, or does it rise? You have not held and released every rock. You have not done that at every point on the earth and at every time. I know I have not, but I still feel that I can predict what happens. It isn't always necessary to experience everything to eliminate options.

Often the best advances have come from leftfield

I don't think this is correct. Sure there are cases when discoveries are made serendipitously, but more often new ideas come from the typical slow laborious efforts of science.

[TheSearcher]

There is stuff written all over about him but as soon as the Comanches themselves denounced him he appeared on the History Channel as their spokeperson (The History Channel makes me ill with other "road apples" also). Did you ever hear the old saying "Liars prosper"?

Lapiche

Sad but true and lets face it,some people are just great at selling themselves. History channel, sometimes good, often a load of horse droppings.

[aneelsamuel90]

People who spread this 2012 bunkum, should be aware on how much harm they can cause. This 2012 end of the world hoax, is a like vicious rumor, that is spreading like mad, in a very vulnerable and guillable segment of humanity : children, youngsters, etc..

To give but an example of how dangerous this can be : In September, 2008, Chayya, a 16 year old girl in India, committed suicide by drinking insecticide. She was scared and depressed, having been convinced by the over-hyped media reports, that the start-up of the Large Hadron Collider in Cern, would cause a miniature big bang and destroy the world.

Some might think that I'm over reacting, but search the net and you'll see, the young children, youngsters and young adults, being afraid, depressed, fearing the world might end. This might seem strange to normal adults, but some of these young people are thinking about suicide, just to escape the alleged 2012 doomsday.

I have an inherent problem with an 7 year old asking me if the world really was going to end in 2012 and if it would be painfull. This was my cousin's young son asking me this last week, he was genuinely terrified by the idea and even a tad depressed about it, as he wanted his life to continue.

All of this, because of what? A few greedy con people, that want to sell their books, video's or 2012 survival kits? Is money really worth anybody's life, especially children 's lives? 2012 is a business and a disgusting one at that.

What you write and what you say can have a profound effect on other people! If someone is saying that the world will end in a disaster in 2012 and someone else takes their own life because of it, who would you deem responsible? I know my answer, what's yours? Think about it! Not everybody has someone around to calm them down and put things into perspective, like I did for my cousin's son.

OK, I'm done with my rant now. Condemn me if you want, but think about who you're talking to, before you start spouting your 2012 hoax.

Hey

I know where you're coming from... but the matter of the fact is that there have always been and always will be these bunch of people who promote the end of the world... that doesn't mean you listen to them and stop living your life most of these theories have been debunked already the few that haven't been don't have enough solid ground to prove true...

no one really knows when the end might happen, could be before 2012, still doesn't mean you stop living

[loganXman]

im watching Conspiracy Theory: with Jesse Ventura and they are talkin about this now. They say a solar flare will knock out the grid for months or even years. They said there is also a hole in our magnetfeild to repel these particles or something like that. they said a huge solar flare did occur 150 yrs ago but didnt do much since we didnt have a "grid". very interesting stuff. check it out on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOWWIDT910I or just type in "jesse ventura conspiracy theory - 2012-" let me know what u all think!

[TheSearcher]

im watching Conspiracy Theory: with Jesse Ventura and they are talkin about this now. They say a solar flare will knock out the grid for months or even years. They said there is also a hole in our magnetfeild to repel these particles or something like that. they said a huge solar flare did occur 150 yrs ago but didnt do much since we didnt have a "grid". very interesting stuff. check it out on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOWWIDT910I or just type in "jesse ventura conspiracy theory - 2012-" let me know what u all think!

Jesse Ventura, not what I consider a very good and reliable source now, same as youtube.

OK lets state the facts.

* There are solar flares all of the time.

* The number of flares (and sunspots) varies over time in an approximate eleven-year cycle.

* The Sun was due to reach a maximum (called ’solar max’) in its 11 year cycle in 2011 or 2012. However, more recent observations have pushed this date off to sometime in 2013.

There is an article published on the New Scientist website, based on a Worst-case Scenario report by NASA and the National Academy of Science in which a hypothetical massive solar storm causes a long-term disruption in the electrical power grid. While the report itself seems solid, the scenario portrayed in the article unfortunately uses the year 2012, adding fuel to the 2012 fire. Read the entire article, it actually says so in it, towards the end.

The strongest solar storm on record is called the “Carrington Event” (the huge solar flare you talk about, I think). It occurred in late August and early September of 1859.

Should such an event occur today, there would be massive disruption in electrical grids, yes, however, the report paints a worst-case scenario where no warning is given, and the eletrical grid operators do not have time to take precautions.

One should make the difference between hypothetical and real world.

[loganXman]

what kind of precautions can/would they take, if they knew something like that was coming?......

[TheSearcher]

what kind of precautions can/would they take, if they knew something like that was coming?......

Better shielding on certain equipment and sensible lines, switching of sensible pieces of equipment, even switching off parts of the system, to prevent a cascade failure of the network. Better to be without power for a few hours instead of blowing it up and being without power for weeks. An engineer could probably explain it better, but in essence, there is a lot that can be done as prevention of failure.