What do you think will happen in 2012?

Not the election, the mayan end date. This is not a spiritual question but possibly one about astrophysics. I have been reading several books on the subject, and am halfway through another one that covers all the main points of speculation.

One particular scenario is called the Galactic Superwave Theory, which if imminent is much too late once actually discovered/seen, as one might bring a huge amount of interstellar debris, and we won't be able to see it coming. This would be attracted into the gravitational field of the sun and the dust would form a shroud around our star. This study theorizes this is exactly what might have wiped out the dinosaurs.

Is the Galactic Superwave Theory also what is behind the theory of a possible pole reversal?

Also, what about the end of TIME AS YOU KNOW IT?? FRACTAL TIME?? This is the most out there theory, and the most interesting of all!

There are so many theories of what physically may or may not happen. I am not a doomsday advocate. I personally think it is possible that the sun may darken for a few days, which might scare the crap out of us, naturally, and that we will have some very extreme weather for awhile. Spiritually? That's another discussion!

I'd call that not ordinary,

Perhaps the 2004 tsunami was a precursor to something imminent from the gamma-ray burst?

and getting into zodiac/ancient Egypt codes and ESP? I ask in the nicest possible way, and without judgment of your beliefs.

I am actually not all that familiar with him,(but saw his name mentioned) just from the general book on different theories I have read. The thing is, there are so many levels of speculation going on. Astrophysics, ancient history,timekeeping in general,earth physics, magnetic fields, plus not just one civilization's folklore or new age spirituality. It's just such a large and deeply discussed topic and that is why I find it fascinating.

It's amazing what we find out ancient cultures probably knew, and how they used that knowledge. There's a lot of fascinating stuff in this ol' universe...:)

If the Galactic Superwave happens why would it happen in 2012? Not really being familiar with whether or not it is even good physics it still doesn't seem there would be any reason to think it would happen in 2012 right? Unless you are giving credence to the Mayan calendar (which was actually created by the Olmec) nonsense, which there is no reason to do. For example: There is no good reason to suppose that the Olmec had any special insight in to the future. The calendar also has the beginning of this world starting sometime in the 3000 BC range which is obviously way way off from what we know through modern science. And last but least the modern Maya themselves do not think there is anything special about 2012.

So, what will happen in 2012? A lot of stuff. Some of it good , some of it bad, none of it likely to be apocalyptic in any way.

The entire subject of 2012 or the start of a new era is just extremely interesting. and your right about why nail it down to one year or date. But almost everyone knows what one is referring to when discussing the 2012 What ifs, so that is why I frame it with a specific time. I certainly don't believe in doomsday as stated before. I believe in the interest of theories.

Like, the position of Earth/Milky Way as it spins around over time (and of course, the Mayan calendar was based upon planetary/cosmic events/positions) and the gravitational force related to the big black hole at the center of the galaxy. Something like that.

Not saying I buy the theory, but I cannot dismiss it out of hand simply because I don't understand it enough. But I know it's not just some random shit pulled out of someone's rear.

"galactic center".

Really, I'd like to know what the authors of these books (who are... who, exactly) know about the alignment, rotation, gravity and magnetic field of the Milky Way that, say, NASA scientists aren't exactly aware of.

In fact see the post below with the link to NASA to see that we don't even know exactly how to define the center today!! So if the claim is that the Olmec somehow knew this it can only be a claim of pure magic.

It's healthy to stay open to at least to the possibility that Olmec and other shamans perceive relevant cosmic etc. knowledge during trance, the typical superiority feeling of Western science can be just blindness to other ways of knowing and learning. Double helix is very typical cross-cultural perception in (shamanic) trance and it's quite likely not a mere coincidence that also the modern founder of DNA first saw double helix in LSD invoked trance.

:rofl:

Yup, Crick the nobelist. http://www.mayanmajix.com/art1699.html

Are you certain your (pseudo)scientific worldview makes you superior to native peoples, their shamans and wordviews and experiences? How come so?

No. No. NO.

For you to accuse someone of being pseudo-scientific while at the same rejecting the scientific method is irony, or perhaps satire, of the highest order.

And to (probably) answer your question, the laugh was due to the fact that no one actually founded DNA. The entire idea of a "DNA founder" is preposterous.

'founded' is poor expression, sorry my very bad non-native English. Dont let that hinder comprehension.

As for science, I have been told that scientific inquiry is first and foremost about empirical reality, about experience. In this view theoretical presuppositions and axioms do not define what science is and is not, and to accuse me of rejecting empirical and logical scientific methods can come only from (pseudo)scientific attitude of making a presupposition into dogma and defining science dogmatically in terms of a given presupposition such as reductionism.

There is no scientific reason to presume that Western culture and worldview is superior to shamanic worldviews or that empirical science would necessarily be in conflict with shamanic worldviews. Such attitudes are unscientific and just signs of cultural prejudice and hybris. Cultural prejudice and hybris are well established scientific facts, as I'm sure you are aware, and cannot be overcome by denial but only by becaming and being aware of them.

Now, do you define or have you ever defined science as reductionism and non-reductionistic approaches as pseudoscience? Can you explore this question honestly and scientifically?

I have been told that scientific inquiry is first and foremost about empirical reality, about experience.
It is much more complex than that. Scientific inquiry, in order to BE scientific, must adhere to the Scientific Method. The method itself allows you to explore hypotheses that go well beyond what would be considered "normal" experience. Astronomy is one very great example of this. We do not "experience" our planet moving rotationally and laterally through space at speeds that would boggle your mind, and we have not "experienced" what pulsars are, or what distant stars are actually made of. However, thanks to complex applied mathematics, physics, and chemistry, we have been able to discern these mysteries about the cosmos and many more, without ever having been to the stars to actually "experience" any of it.

It's true to a certain extent that the Scientific Method limits what it can investigate to that which can be observed by (sometimes augmented) human senses. But then, what else is there? The five senses we have are the only way in which we can perceive the universe around us, and the only way in which we can interact with it. The Scientific Method gives a way to explain how and why those senses work the way they do, and in the process helps us explain what those senses tell us.

Here's the part that's very important: Science is not about superiority, prejudice, or hubris. It is about proof, specifically in the form of repeatable results. Science does not denigrate the worldviews of shamans or priests, or anyone else for that matter. If a shaman or priest can show repeatable results for a ritual or process they perform, the scientist will recognize this and be compelled to investigate further in order to find out WHY the results are repeatable. When you get down to it, science is about the methodical investigation of any phenomena that we may find interesting.

The problem is that shamans, priests, and those like them (and those who support them) tend to object to their processes and rituals being subjected to scientific inquiry. "A magician never reveals his secrets" is a statement that applies all too well to most of these people. You have done this through the following statement: Putting aside for a moment the fact that "Western culture" and scientific inquiry are mutually exclusive, shamanic worldviews set themselves up in opposition to the Scientific Method when they make claims about the physical world (the one we perceive and interact with through our five senses) yet demand to be exempt from scientific inquiry, or even go so far as to denigrate scientific inquiry when methodical investigation yields no repeatable results.

Let me come back to the point: The Scientific Method doesn't remotely qualify as "reductionist", yet you continue to attack it as being so. When you to do this, and then in the same breath accuse someone else on this board of "pseudo-science", you show a remarkable lack of scientific understanding, and incredible hubris yourself.

- Human sensual system is much more complex than just the traditional five senses:
"Proprioception (pronounced /ˌproʊpri.ɵˈsɛpʃən/ PRO-pree-o-SEP-shən, from Latin proprius, meaning "one's own" and perception) is the sense of the relative position of neighbouring parts of the body. Unlike the six exteroceptive senses (sight, taste, smell, touch, hearing, and balance) by which we perceive the outside world, and interoceptive senses, by which we perceive the pain and movement of internal organs, proprioception is a third distinct sensory modality that provides feedback solely on the status of the body internally. It is the sense that indicates whether the body is moving with required effort, as well as where the various parts of the body are located in relation to each other." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception

- Greek 'empeiria' means experience, which is good to keep in mind to demystify what "empirical" actually means. Empiricism is primary because that is how theories are created and refuted. Scientific methods are often complex as you point out and require carefull and skillfull thinking including constant questioning and revaluation of basic presuppositions. One presupposition worth questioning (and abandoning) is that "Laws of Nature" are immutable and eternal, when there are many good reasons to speak about "habits" than immutable laws. E.g. the values of certain basic "constants" seem to be not constant but evolving. What history of science shows that each major advance makes the view of world wider, deeper and more complex, and there is no a prori reason to presume that there would be limits to empirical study and reality, especially in a dynamical and evolving universe.

- Measuring and measurability is another complex requiring very carefull thinking. Since the EPR-test there is no question about "non-local" causalities or codependencies that cannot be directly measured by 4D measuring divises of classical mechanics. This "measurement problem" of quantum physics has led to wide variety of interpretations and created lot of confusion. Measuring is directly connected also to the question about quantitavely non-measurable qualities.

- Taking these complexities and others in consideration, study of cognition is not easy. The reductionistic hypothesis, however, is easy to refute empirically with anomalies, empirical facts that falsify its predictions. That's been done allready (Sheldrake etc.), let's get over that and move forward.

- In general remaining native peoples just want to be left in peace by Western civilization and capitalistic globalization in order not to be exterminated by it, the sad history needs not to be repeated. There are many kinds of shamans and no need to make wide genaralizations about their will to co-operate with academic science. As remaining shamans of native peoples are preoccupied with their healing work etc., trance as very important part of cognition would be best to study empirically e.g. with help of LSD, MDA etc., which was a very promising field prior to the hystery of War on drugs which made it nearly impossible.

If science is about truth and beauty and not just technological control over nature and psyche (which is failing miserably), let's remember that the Greek for truth is 'a-letheia', state of non-forgetting. Western pioneers of experimental study of trance came to the conclusion that "normal" state of cognition functions as filter of wider and deeper reality and trance opens the "doors of perception" to remembering limitless reality.

Point-by-point.

1. Who cares? That wiki article is nothing new to me. Proprioception and interoceptive senses have nothing to do with the outside world that we interact with. These two types of senses can only be investigated, documented, and further explored through the use of exteroperceptive senses. Unless of course you think you can explore and research these senses without writing anything down or communicating with anyone else. I simplified the idea of the human sensory system because I was speaking of interacting with the outside world.

2. Again you misunderstand the Scientific Method. Empiricism is used to create and refute hypotheses, not theories. Theories only come about through incredibly repeatable results. Laws, in scientific context, are very rare, and are found only when natural phenomena are readily observable. Scientific Laws are only attempts to describe phenomena, not explain them. That is why there is both a Law of Gravity and a Theory of Gravitation. One describes the phenomenon, and one attempts to explain HOW it happens. Not a single scientist has claimed that the "Laws of Nature" are immutable. The thing about science is that it ALWAYS leaves open the possibility that new data could either prove us wrong or help us refine what we know.

3. Scientists understand that there are limits to our ability to measure everything in the universe. What's your point? Inability to measure something doesn't necessarily mean that it DOES or does NOT exist. Try, for example, to use a light meter to measure the luminance of a star in the night sky, preferably on a moonless night. Unless you have incredibly sophisticated and prohibitively expensive equipment, it won't work. At best, you'll get an ambient light reading, and have no data whatsoever on the individual star. Does that mean the starlight doesn't exist? Of course not. Measurablility is only one part of the puzzle. Direct observability is another part, as is indirect observability (the ability to see the aftereffects of something), along with many other pieces. Of course, the only way to formulate a theory on something is to put all pieces of the puzzle together repeatedly, but as long as you have some pieces you can keep searching for the rest.

4. You keep using that word (reductionistic). I do not think it means what you think it means.

5. Once again you conflate Western culture with the Scientific Method. As for your statements on drugs and altered states, take your battle for legalization elsewhere because I'm not interested in discussing the validity of drug use.

Finally, science has very little to do with the concepts of truth and beauty as often defined by the vox populi. Science is merely a method of investigation that gives us the ability to know what we're actually talking about when we attempt to explain what we sense in the world around us. There is no reason to dismiss this methodology simply because it cannot prove that which you'd like to believe.

1. Abandoning the hypothesis that mind is limited to brain ("reductionism" is the usual short for this), proprioception is one very interesting avenue of investigation. Telepathy seems to be perceived in many cases by proprioception (e.g. staring at the back experiments) and group meditation can and does affect proprioception as does shamanic trance. These are real experiences common to many people so yes, proprioception is also a communicative sense and can be explored as such. The scientific fact that walks in the woods are good also for mental health may also have lot to do with body-sense not limited to classical level of body.

2. Correct, hypothesis is the right word here. "Laws" of nature is problematic expression because of its anthropocentrism (only human societies have laws and strictly speaking not all but only litterary ones.), "habits" though not perfect is a better expression.

3. Yes, you describe well the point I was making about complexities of putting together a complex puzzle of measurables and non-measurables. There is a strong suggestion and hypothesis that two non-measurable fields of fundamental importance, cognition and dark matter, relate directly with each other. Putting that puzzle together in testable form is indeed a complex task but not impossible, and as for the strong and emotional social prejudice in current academic reality against this and similar hypothesis, it is not at all helpfull.

4. In narrow sense, what is generally meant by "reductionism" is the falsified hypothesis that mind is limited to brain, and the meaning is not unclear. The wider "metaphysical" sense of the word is also familiar to you so I don't see what is your problem with the word unless you clarify.

5. Oh, but the social fact of war against certain drugs (trance inducing) together with psychocontrol with other drugs (often against spontaneous trance and related phenomena) affects us all and should be discussed. If what is considered - IMO falsely - "mysticism" and "religion" in shamanic cultures could be studied also scientifically and with help of entheogens that would mean lot to the chances that the culture dependent on science would remain adaptive to evolution. Western or globalized civilization is in deep crisis, in process of collapsing, and the collapse is not independent from how science is done and world percieved. We have a common problem and as Einstein said, problems cannot be solved on same level that caused them.

Philosophy of science is a wide area of discussion. There has been no suggestion of abandoning any valid method, on the contrary. But there is also no reason to limit scientific investigation to just one method and its limits and presuppositions. Abandoning the hypothesis that mind is limited to brain does not mean abandoning scientific methods, on the contrary abandoning it is required by scientific method.

Reductionism clearly has nothing to do with the idea or hypothesis "that mind is limited to brain." Scientists have long understood that the various parts of the brain working together constitute much more than just the sums of the functions of the individual parts. Reductionism finds no home in higher biology and anatomy, because it doesn't take into account complex interactive effects. Reductionism DOES provide a starting point for basic scientific study of the human body, but only because it fits so well with the human tendency to compartmentalize and the process makes it easier to introduce new students to biological and physiological concepts.

But there is also no reason to limit scientific investigation to just one method and its limits and presuppositions.
And what are the other methods? How have they been proven to provide verifiable results? What limits do you believe the current Scientific Method suffers from? Keep in mind that it has been honed over centuries in order to provide us with a way to guarantee verifiable, repeatable results. We need those verifiable and repeatable results, as they are the cornerstone to understanding and interacting with the world around us.

Abandoning the hypothesis that mind is limited to brain
You're going to need to give me a reason to do so first. This hypothesis has repeatedly been tested with results that support it. If you wish to challenge this hypothesis, then you'll need to clearly state your own and provide verifiable data that supports it.

on the contrary abandoning it is required by scientific method.
Absolutely wrong. We do not completely abandon hypotheses simply because we feel like exploring other possibilities. This is contrary to the scientific method. Hypotheses are abandoned under only two circumstances: a complete lack of supporting experimental data, or a lazy researcher doing a half-assed job. You are claiming this while under the false impression that contrary hypotheses are not allowed to exist in the scientific world. This is simply not true. The Scientific Method allows you to come up with any idea, whether it is contrary to current working models or in line with them, and then test that idea to provide verifiable experimental data. Whether or not you get FUNDING for testing that hypothesis is a different story, but that's not science, that's politics.

"Mental phenomena reduce to classical mechanics in brain" is a reductionistic position, but you are correct to poin out that reductionism is much wider concept and there is no need to abandon reductionistic strategies in science but rather use them together with holistic approaches to complex systems such as organisms. Reductionism and holism are not and need not be either-or positions.

As for scientific methods, logically the meaning and value of repeatable results needs to contextualized also with the idea of dynamic and evolving nature, but don't ask me how exactly. High degree polynomials with multiple variables and no constants except number theory? Physics- and cognition -reducing ultimately to number theory does sound at least a logical position as the "inexplicable effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciencess" is hard or impossible to explain on the ground that mind reduces to classical mechanics in brain.

Abandoning the hypothesis that mind is limited to brain is obviously required by empirical data according to scientific method, Sheldrake has been mentioned and the whole list of empirical anomalies and logical fallacies is too wide to repeat here. The requirement to abandon the hypothesis of reduction to brain is not based on mere wish to explore other possibilities but the other possibilities need to be explored because the old materialistic standard hypothesis doesn't survive basic scientific test of explaining empirical reality.

Very good of you to mention politics. The reasons why alternative hypothesis don't get enough attention and funding have little to do with science and much to do with academic politics - politics that are nothing mysterious but explainable and understandle in terms of social science and psychology. But even so, lot of good work has been done and progress made.

Just found this, haven't yet read all contributions but they touch many of the issues discussed here and open new ones. Hope you enjoy: http://www.fdavidpeat.com/forums/indigenous/overview.htm

2. Crick didn't take LSD, and he didn't use it to discover the structure of LSD. He used molecular modeling and x-ray crystallography.

From your own link:

"He listened with rapt, amused attention to what I told him about the role of LSD in his Nobel Prize-winning discovery. He gave no intimation of surprise. When I had finished, he said: 'Print a word of it and I'll sue.'"

3. You're probably thinking of Kary Mullis, who didn't found DNA, or even discover the structure. He invented PCR and he was high on LSD at the time. But the concept is exceedingly simple so there's no reason to credit LSD.

4. Nobody came up with the structure of DNA prior to molecular modeling and x-ray crystallography. Just because somebody had a dream about two snakes humping doesn't mean they founded the structure of DNA.

5. Science is superior to mysticism in every way. No ifs, ands, or buts. Your stereotyping of native peoples as being innately tied to mysticism, pseudoscience, and ignorance, however, is insulting.

Your stereotyping of native peoples as being innately tied to mysticism, pseudoscience, and ignorance, however, is insulting.
Thank you for saying that. I jumped whole hog into a discussion about science and totally missed the asinine nature of his premise.

"Look before you leap..."

2 and 3:
From the link: "Crick told him he had perceived the double-helix shape while on LSD."

Crick did not deny that, "print a word of it and's I'll sue" means just that Crick didn't want his LSD use to go public, which is hardly surprising in climate of "War on drugs" hysteria.

Yes, Kary Mullis is another Nobelist DNA researcher using LSD. His own words on the subject, saying that without LSD he probably would not made his scientific discovery, are of course of much higher value as testimony than what you claim.

4: Your claim is without foundation. The cross-cultural images of double helix during trance experiences (spontaneous or triggered by various methods) and the experiences of two Nobelist DNA researchers pose a valid and interesting question that should not just be brushed off.

5: It is very unclear what you mean by "mysticism" and "superiority". Anthropological study shows that shamanic trance by various means is universal practice and of central importance to native cultures, so that is in no way stereotyping but a scientific fact. Labelling importance of shamanic trance to native peoples "ignorance" etc. is indeed insulting.

Crick objected strongly to claims that he took LSD. It's unlikely that Crick even had access to LSD back in 1952-53. Crick and Watson developed their model of DNA due to old fashioned hard work, not some sort of woo woo spiritual enlightment and chemical doping.

If Mullis hadn't hit upon PCR with LSD, somebody else would have shortly thereafter would have without LSD.

Your claim that primitive cultures without any knowledge of either DNA or chemistry discovered the structure of DNA is without merit. The structure of DNA is far more involved then simply a "double helix." And if any culture ever even produced an anti-parallel double helix in their art, I'd like to see it.

I don't think you're confused about "mysticism" and "superiority" at all. Mysticism never did anything for anybody, never answered any question, and never contributed anything to the advancement of humanity. Some natives practice mysticism, so do some westerners. The better of both abandon mysticism and superstition for science and rational thought.

The implication is obviously that I haven't read any books, when that is clearly not true for any sane observer reading my posts (in fact I've written a few). I suppose that it was meant to be an insult and/or strengthen your feeling of superiority, but in the way the expression is used it obviously fails to deliver the message, since the implication is so evidently untrue. Using expression "read a book" in the way it is done seems very strange behaviour.

Whatever that means.

It's not that you haven't read books, tama. It's just based on your comments here, you haven't read enough of the good ones.

is in the eye of the beholder. Ars longa, vita brevis, there are more good books than there is time to read. In the field of physics and natural sciences David Bohm's books have been among the best that I've read, for many reasons. 'Gödel, Escher, Bach' is a masterpiece, to name just a few that I can recommend.

As for widening horizons, the unfounded strong denial that Crick could have used LSD and perceived the double helix first that way, as he has been reported of telling his fellow scientists, does speak of a strong limiting prejudice, together with your other attitudes. A dose of healthy scepticism would be helpfull.

I'm old guy with many fields of interest and with my time I like more to see what is happening at the creative frontier of science and what it can offer to important philosophical questions and healthy world views. Old fools who have nothing else to offer except their superiority complex are not really interesting. Tada!

You really don't know what you're talking about.

subject is linguistic category, in that sense language uses the subject rather than the other way around. Subject imagining that it is using language - as an object - inside and subject to language is suffering from superiority complex inherent in English language. Funny, ain't it! :)

Even the Mayans say so. It's the end of one calendar cycle and the beginning of another one.

Sounds like Jesus is coming back. :P also instead of 2012 will the new calendar start at year 0001?

how they number their calendar years. It's just really a chronological date. That's all. It's a astronomical date for a civilization that is different from ours. I have read that the descendent's of the Maya who live in Central America today think this is all hyperbole from people who don't understand them or their culture.

getting all het up about what will happen when we get to Dec 31 2010 and ZOMG THE CALENDAR ENDS!!!1!!!! It'a just the end of that particular calendar, silly, not the end of the world.

and the books you're reading sounds like a complete load of garbage. Full of meaningless word salad involving words they probably don't even understand, and certainly haven't bothered trying to fit into anything approaching their proper meanings.

If you paid for any of them, take them back to the bookstore and demand your money back. No need to encourage the con-men in their attempt to scam people out of their money.

But there is a most definite alignment about to occur that doesn't happen except every 26,000 yrs. give or take. That's a rather large indisputable fact "con-men" don't have to sell. I hardly see how that is a scam.

The end day scammers are those religious channel evangelicals with their apocolapse dramas!

I suspect the books haven't even tried to explain their 'alignment' in any terms that can actually be checked, but there isn't one.

gravity falls off as one over the distance squared, so even if there was a "galactic alignment" you'd have to hypothesis some mechanism of destruction other than gravitational.

Q3JR4.

Please, specific. :shrug:

The fact that there is a rare alignment won't be the end of the world



This alignment occurs every 13,000 years and the world is not destroyed every 13,000 years.



I would bet that the world won't end. If you are wrong and it does end, how will anyone collect on that bet

I asked what do you think will happen in 2012!!!!! Read the whole post.

A couple friends and I indulged in some assorted substances and went down to some deal at a park, maybe Belmont, in Chicago. Expecting "peace and love, maaaaan". What we got was a whole lineup of shitty punk bands.

Ah, the good old days.

But the advertisements will begin shortly after Easter.

And the theorists will just forget they ever thought it would happen.

Just like Y2K.

But I don't think it will be as uneventful as Y2k because of the alignment and magnetics. No disaster-just something to remember for sure.

from whatever time frame, any credibility.

One thing that many religions do have in common is eschatology, or "what's going to happen in the end times." The whole concept of an "end times" is just a part of the ability of religion to manipulate people.

If there's a time when the "bad" people will get their due, then it makes it easier to bear suffering from them in the present. It's just bullshit.

Sweet.

was better. Maritime Hall, maybe?

I had a good time, though. Hard to argue with the Warfield. :hippie:

You will realize that you wasted a bunch of money on books about complete bullshit.

who should know what he is talking about... says they were off by a factor of 20.

http://2012news.com/?p=186
Michio Kaku Warns of 2012 Solar Storm

April 22, 2009

Dr. Michio Kaku was recently on Fox News providing information regarding the possibility of solar storm at the peak of the solar cycle in 2012, and the serious consequences…

“We made a mistake,” Dr. Kaku said, when speaking about industry calculations about solar flares. Kaku believes the cycle will peak around 2012, possibly playing havoc with Earthling gadgets like Blackberries.

The Internet, Fox, television, cable, satellite TV” could all get “wiped out around 2012″.

He goes on to suggest that we need to reinforce our satellites, and create redundant power systems. President Obama has already earmarked billions to be spent on the US power grid, but it remains to be seen if it could be completed (or even begun) prior to 2012.

Fox reported on the concept back in December. Prior to that, Dr. Kaku was interviewed by the Daily Grail. Here’s the Fox News video:

:shrug:

apologies for the comment and to add that the magnetosphere has been weakening steadily for some time now. This is a NEW situation we find ourselves in.

No, actually, it's not a NEW situation- the Earth's magnetic field changes over time, as do a lot of things.

If you're absolutely determined to believe in End-Times gobbledygook, go ahead- but If you think you're hanging it on "real science" (Michio Kaku, God Bless 'Im, doesn't seem like someone to turn down free cable airtime) you're going to need to do better than this.

just make sure that I stock up on beer, so that if I have to KMA goodbye, I'll be good and drunk while doing it..:shrug:

like Jupiter and a few of those other items wandering around out there.

...like the one that happened in 1859. It will likely cause much more damage if it happens now because of our technology going well beyond a few telegraph lines. But if it happens in 2012 it will be nothing more than an interesting coincidence. The Mayans, nor any other ancient race, nor any self-proclaimed psychic, predicted the 1859 storm.

not a damn thing.

It's all a bunch of woo. And in "honor" of Mayawoo, I give you... 2012 rolling eyes smileys!

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

... then Ballroom Dancing will replace Baseball as an olympic sport.

:hi:

will you renounce "fractal time" and "superwave theory" and creationism and join the rest of us in reality?

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with science...

Oh, and by the way, I'll turn 40.

:shrug:

Who moved it here in the first place? Some mod apparently dropped the ball on this one...

I've alerted and cited forum rules.

Maybe the mods are really into woo woo.

the satire loses some weight. It's a pretty stupid thread just sitting out there by itself with no accompanying 2012 woo right next to it.

i might be the closest thing to an expert on this stuff that DU has (though please do feel free to knock me down a peg). I also haven't read every post here, so I have no clue if I'm being repetitive.

Anyway, I *almost* have a PhD in Latin American history, with an emphasis in the history of Mexico's indigenous populations. I've extensively studied the Mayas and their culture and religion and spent much time on the Yucatan peninsula. My adviser is a Mayan specialist, and has copious contacts with Mayan elders and spiritual leaders.
2012 is *not* an end date. There have been stela dated to 4000+ ad. The thing with the Mayan calendar is this-it's cyclical, as I'm sure you know. It's also one of many calendars that they used and the most important one for our purposes, the tzolk'in, is very complicated to understand.
All Mesoamericans believed that the world in which we all live now is but one in a cycle of worlds that the gods created. The gods, unlike the Judeo-Christian God, are fallible and the first cycles of worlds were mistakes. This world is not a mistake, but the Mayans also believe that when this cycle ends, another one will take its place.

Let me put it another way- Mayans in the Yucatan and Guatemalan think the hysteria over 2012 is funny, and probably a little annoying.
So, as I tell my students every semester, keep paying your bills...the world isn't ending on 21 December 2012...at least not for everyone.

this stuff was true. :-(

idiot right wing. but the mayans could not have predicted that :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Same Shit, Different Year

A prefix will change and lunatics worldwide will cry doom until nothing happens, at which time they'll deny they ever said anything about it and hope fervently the rest of us don't remember.

Remember, the beginning date of the Mayan calendar was also an arbitrary one and that means there is no real significance for the ending date, either. Besides, it only ends this age. It begins a new one.

There have been a few interviews with Mayan people here and there and they all agree: they want the hooey to stop and the Armageddonists to go home. It's only the change of a date.

http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/ the calendar ends on December 31, 2010 so I don't think we'll make it to 2012.

Q3JR4.

The History Channel will have to find something else to make Chicken Little-ish documentaries about.

Nothing much.

Someone above asked a good question, "Why are we to assume that the Olmecs had a special insight into the future?"

Maybe they just ran out of stone to carve.

However, I think 2012 is purely symbolic. It is a very strong meme, a psychological focal point for a lot of converging concerns. I wrote the following article last November, and it's still my position today.

as 2012 approaches, a bunch of easily manipulated blithering idiots will become more and more convinced that something terrible is going to happen (for reasons they don't even understand), and that the truth is being hidden from them. And the lives of more sensible and intelligent people will be made that much more annoying and inconvenient until the "crisis" finally passes.

Abnormal psychology may be fascinating, but let's not romanticize blatant ignorance.

no biggy. Like Jesus marked the end of Aries and the beginning of Pieces. I don't believe in astrology but whether it was long forgotten or not, all religions are based on it, even Christianity. Jesus is the personification of the sun and the 12 decipels are the 12 signs of the zodiac, for example.

Only this time, Sarah Palin will be laughed out of a presidential race.

DU addicts will have pointless predictable arguments in the R/T forum. Later some of us will vote, using the districts redrawn with the 2010 census data.

Yeah, same ole same ole.

:eyes:

Did you see "Red Hot Catholic Love"?

Looked it up and it doesn't ring a bell.

You pretty much hit on the whole concept of the episode a few posts above. Father Maxi tries to do something about the scandal surrounding the Catholic Church, and when he gets started everyone agrees with him, until he says that priests should stop molesting altar boys. The priests don't want to stop, they just want people to stop catching them. Much like here, where people just want us to stop talking about it, as if talking about it were the actual problem.

I thought the question wasn't a spiritual one... :shrug:

Doomsday is coming! The Maya predicted it in the most convoluted way possible.

When the OP says he wants to discuss astrophysics, he's not being entirely forthcoming.

Here's the appropriate DU Woo Group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=245

A lot of us are wondering if it isn't 1010, with so many in thrall of "portents" and "prophecies" from ages ago.

What does the public know about Mayans? Zilch. Most couldn't summon a single thought about Mayans, save maybe pyramids and a few bloody images of human sacrifice, courtesy Mel Gibson. Then somebody notices the rollover date on their calendar is coming up, and suddenly they're seers, custodians of special wisdom. We still don't know shit about them, but by gum, we know gen-u-wine doomsday revelation when we see it. We're a bunch of goobs.

Pestilence. The usual.

That's what will happen.