This website is very informative and does a good job showing why 2012 will not be the end of mankind. However, if we can't predict earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, etc.. then how can scientists say "The world won't end. There is no Nibiru. The poles will no reverse. Yellowstone will not blow." I mean, if we can't predict small things, how can they be so sure about the big things. What if there is a planet out there that hasn't been detected….i mean they fnd new stuff in space everyday….. I just don't see how they (NASA and other scientists) can say "We are sure that unless you die, you will be here to enjoy 2013 and beyond."
However, if we can't predict earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, etc.. then how can scientists say "The world won't end. There is no Nibiru. The poles will no reverse. Yellowstone will not blow."
Nature is inherently unpredictable, and that includes Yellowstone. There is, however, no evidence that the world will end any time soon or that anything even resembling the fictional object called "Nibiru" exists. On pole reversals, all the evidence suggests they take hundreds to thousands of years to occur, and there is absolutely no data suggesting that we are in the midst of one or that such a thing could happen any time soon, in a short time span (like overnight in 2012).
I could very easily turn your argument back at you and say, "Well, if we can't actually know about any of this, then all we can do is go with the evidence. The people crying doom have no evidence whatsoever, while we have plenty of evidence that everything is within normal parameters. So why do you believe the doomsayers?" If you're going to invoke a lack of knowledge (which isn't the case in science, but just hypothetically) as an excuse for rejecting scientific positions, then you have to acknowledge that it's a two way street. The doomsayers have nothing on which to base their claims, and they can't know anything either. So you're basically worrying yourself over myths and lies.
I mean, if we can't predict small things, how can they be so sure about the big things.
I don't know what you mean by "small things" and "big things." What things?
What if there is a planet out there that hasn't been detected….
There is no undetected planet that is in any position to influence the earth at any time in the near future. That's one of the biggest problems with Nibiru claims. Proponents have to completely ignore gravity when making excuses for the planet's tendency to play peek-a-boo (and always elude the gaze of astronomers), but they simultaneously claim that the gravity will be Earth's undoing when Nibiru gets close enough. Unfortunately for those proponents, planets and brown dwarfs cannot magically switch their gravitational influence on and off. Anything of the size doomsayers put forth for Nibiru would have been spotted many, many years ago if it was close enough now to influence the Earth soon. As it stands, there is no such object. You can look at the sky for yourself. Everything is as it should be, right in line with what we know about Solar System.
i mean they fnd new stuff in space everyday…..
Not near-earth planets of multiple earth masses, as Nibiru is claimed to be by some. And again, gravity….
I just don't see how they (NASA and other scientists) can say "We are sure that unless you die, you will be here to enjoy 2013 and beyond."
Would you mind providing a source for that quote? Or is that something you're attributing to "NASA and other scientists," but nobody actually said it? I don't know what will happen in 2012. I do know that there is no evidence suggesting that anything out of the ordinary will occur, no more so than in any other year. And I know that the claims of 2012 doomsayers are logically and scientifically without merit. You can learn this for yourself just by reading through some of this website. What more do you want?
Actually, scientists can predict earthquakes….to a certain degree of accuracy. Geologists and seismologists study the readings from seismographs and look for trends, such is if there are an unusually large number of smaller tremors in a given area that could be building to a larger event. While they can't nail down a specific date with this information, they can usually determine a 'window' for when such a large event may have a good chance of occurring, and how powerful it is likely to be. They also use a similar technique with volcanoes, to determine when they might next erupt.
As for Nibiru, an object that is the size that the proponents describe, that is in our solar system is very easy to detect. It could be seen with the naked eye, were it there. Yet none of the millions of professional or amateur astronomers have come forward to claim this discovery, which would make them very famous and could get them a little extra spendin' money. By observations of celestial bodies, we can determine their orbital characteristics, such as average distance from the Sun, eccentricity of the orbit, and inclination with respect to the plane of the solar system. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion (as outlined on the Nibiru page on this site) say that any object with the purported orbital characteristics of Nibiru would perturb the orbits of the other planets and would have been ejected from the Solar System long ago, like within the first few million years after the Solar System's formation.
We know 2012 is a hoax because it's (said like the guy in the Thomas Dolby song) SCIENCE!! Science observes, it collects data, it makes predictions and projections based on that data, it tests, and it either confirms or refutes those predictions. Then it tests again, either with new parameters or revision of the old ones, to see if it might make a difference.
The techniques I have described for determining earthquake and volcanic activity and planetary motion (and these are just two examples) have been tested, re-tested, and re-tested again, and will continue to be tested and refined. That is how science works. To say "we can't predict earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions" is an incredibly naive and ignorant statement. Learn about seismology, geology, meteorology, and astronomy before you issue such a ridiculous blanket statement.
Hi Terrified;
I'm sorry that this stuff has gotten you so frightened, but I understand your fear, and I'll do my best to explain the differences between the kinds of things you are talking about.
You asked:
However, if we can't predict earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, etc.. then how can scientists say "The world won't end. There is no Nibiru. The poles will no reverse. Yellowstone will not blow." I mean, if we can't predict small things, how can they be so sure about the big things.
You are really asking questions that are comparing apples and oranges… two different realms of knowledge within science.
You sort of divided it into 'small things' (earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions) and 'big things' (Nibiru, pole reversals, yellowstone supervolcano eruption). In this post I'll divide it up into three areas, or 'realms'.
For the first realm or group:
I am as sure as I can be that there will be earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanic eruptions in 2012. We will also have them in 2011 and 2010, and more importantly, in 2013 and 2014. These things occur every year.
All of these things are parts of chaotic systems. We cannot predict individual earthquakes, volcanoes, or tornadoes, etc., but we can assign probabilities to their occurrence based on various factors. Earthquakes are much more likely to occur along known faults than they are to occur in stable continental crust. (By the way, when the tiny 3.8 happened in Illinois, all of us Californians were laughing at the reaction it got. A 3.8 barely gets a mention on the evening news out here.) Volcanoes are more likely to occur in tectonically active regions (roughly the same regions where earthquakes are likely to occur, by the way), and tornadoes are more likely to occur with certain weather conditions that prevail in given geographic areas at certain times of the year.
None of this helps us predict when the next 'big one' on the mighty San Andreas Fault will occur.
So, this is our first kind of knowledge: The evidence that is unquestioned by all parties, the factual basis of science. e.g., "Data".
Moving on to our second kind of knowledge, and staying in the 'earthquake' theme, the 2012 proponents claim that 'massive earthquakes' will occur, claiming simultaneously that we can predict them and that one (or more) has been predicted! When challenged, they often resort to this claim: We don't know how to predict earthquakes, therefore we can't prove that a great earthquake will not occur in 2012. This is a fallacious argument, known formally as 'argumentum ad ignorantum' or the "appeal to ignorance". It is a specific form of shifting the burden of proof.
In rhetoric and informal logic, the party making the positive claim bears the burden of proof. So if someone claims that a massive earthquake will occur, they bear the burden of supporting that claim. Cries that their opponents (in this case, us) can't disprove their claim are essentially admitting that they have zilch, zero, nada, nothing to base their claim on.
OK, so fine, I can't disprove that a massive earthquake will occur in 2012. Given that statistically we get about 1 'great quake' (above 8.0) per year I will stipulate that we are likely to have one of these in 2012. However we are also likely to have one in 2011, we had one in 2010 already, etc. The 2012 crowd needs something bigger… so they claim that an unprecedented earthquake (I've seen claims of a 10.5 or larger) earthquake will occur.
At this point, let me introduce you to another rule of thumb in Detecting BS, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If you want to claim that something out of the ordinary will occur (and we get about 1 earthquake above 8.0 per year, so that is 'ordinary') then you'd better bring the evidence. What is the mechanism for this earthquake. Given that the maximum size of earthquakes based on known mechanisms peaks out at around 9.5 to 9.8, what can cause a 10.5? (a 10.5 is roughly 10 times as large as a 9.5).
The 2012 proponents fail miserably in this regard.
(hint to readers: if you are a 2012 proponent with evidence supporting a Mag 10.5 earthquake in 2012, this is your opportunity to present it).
So, this is the second kind of knowledge: Claims must have a factual basis.
Now, a third kind of knowledge, and this is where we can be more certain: Claims must agree with observations.
Case in point, Nibiru.
I can state categorically that the object proposed as Nibiru, with a 3600 year orbit with a perigee (closest point to the sun) of about 1 AU (the orbit of earth) does not exist, and cannot exist based on well known laws of orbital mechanics, first laid out in the 17th century by Johannes Kepler. I won't bore you with the complete rebuttal, but that can be found on our Nibiru page. I will say that many of the claims made by 2012 proponents fall into this third class: Claims that are clearly impossible unless we disregard everything we do know. Sure, I can't predict when the next comet to be discovered will be, or what it's orbit will be like. But that doesn't prevent me from pointing out that Nibiru (much larger than a comet, therefore easier to discover) cannot exist in the claimed orbit, and therefor cannot have the claimed effects on our planet.
So this was our third kind of knowledge: Claims must agree with known scientific laws and theories, or else have enough supporting evidence to overturn those laws and theories.
I hope that you can see the differences between these things. Please feel free to follow-up if anything I've said is unclear.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
We all know that magnitude of earthquakes are in logs, however I found this article in the FAQ of Canada Earthquake site:
"If the shaking of a magnitude 7 is 10 times greater than a magnitude 6 and 100 times greater than a magnitude 5, is the shaking from a magnitude 9 100 times greater than a magnitude 7
No. Earthquake shaking, in the frequencies that damage buildings, increases to a maximum between a magnitude 7 and 8 earthquake, then the shaking simply involves a bigger area. However, the duration of shaking for a megathrust earthquake is much longer. It can be several minutes. This long duration can result in damage to some types of buildings that might not be damaged at the same strength of shaking produced by a smaller earthquake. "
So here it's saying that after magnitude 8.9, the area increases but the amount of shaking doesn't. Can anyone confirm this?
Kevin;
I can't. I'm not a geologist. When looking up your question I even noted a mistake I made in my previous answer (sad face).
But, I'll see if I can get a geologist to weigh in on this, or if I find a confirming source I will let you know.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Nothing about the max "shaking", but I found this page informative on the differences between the 'magnitude' and 'strength' of an earthquake:
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Ok thanks astroboy!
I have also tried to look for other sources that states the same thing, but so far no luck…
I guess the answer lies in "in the frequencies that damage buildings"…. That is soo vague :(
I didn't mean to offend anyone. I just can't see how scientists are so certain we, mankind/the earth, are billions of years away from extinction.
I didn't mean to offend anyone. I just can't see how scientists are so certain we, mankind/the earth, are billions of years away from extinction.
I'm not offended at all, but I think you're questioning positions that no one here holds, and probably few if any scientists hold. For example, can you name a scientist who made the claim "we, mankind/the earth, are billions of years away from extinction?" If you can't, why did you attribute that position to "scientists?"
The issue with 2012 isn't that anyone here is claiming to know know the future, nor do scientists in general claim that. The point of this website, as I understand it, is to analyze specific claims and explain why they have no scientific merit. Nobody's telling you what will happen. We're telling you why certain claims about what will happen are unfounded and unscientific.
Consider 'billions' (as in 1 or 2) to be the upper boundary for life on earth. This is due to the fact that solar radiance is slowly increasing as the sun ages, and after that time frame there will be no liquid water on earth (kind of important).
So, we know that we cannot survive on earth (unless we move it) past 2 billion years or so. That is a different claim than "we are billions of years away from extinction".
We (the human race) could go extinct much sooner than that, especially if we do something stupid (insert your favorite man-made apocalypse here: nuclear war, bio-engineered plague, etc).
It is up to you to educate yourself as to the real risks and rewards, and (assuming you live in a democratic society) elect representatives who also understand the real risks and rewards.
What will not happen is an alien invasion of Annunaki from Nibiru here to draw crop circles, mutilate our livestock, steal our women and water and kill the rest of us in 2012.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
I was referring to NASA saying somewhere that the earth, will continue on until the sun goes supernova or something in a few billion years. I feel like, one day i believe 2012 is the end, and then the next day i feel that all the claims are unfounded and I'm crazy for believing it. I am just stuck in the middle and I am trying to get a better grip on it and understand it better. I just don't want my life to end on 12.21.2012. i have my whole life and importnant things ahead of me. I want kids and grandkids and even great grandkids, and i am afraid this won't happen…….Please don't get aggitated with me…..I've come here for the truth amd comfort.
I don't think any scientist claimed that humans will be extinct after a few billion years. They simply predicted that in a few billion years, earth will no longer be inhabitable because of the increasing heat.
I, too, was terrified by the whole 2012 thing until I came to this website, where facts and evidence are shown to prove the claims made by the proponents are just wild imaginations and misinterpretations of science and ancient civilizations.
It's true we don't know what will happen in 2012, but probably(99.99999999999999999999999999999%) not the end of the world…
I feel comfort when I come here and read the posts. I guess I am still just extremlyworried that there is something the scientists don't know. It's a scarey thing to some people to think we will be here and then BOOM mankind is just gone. I'm sorry I'm not as brave as you guys to just blow it off as a hoax and just keep on going. I feel like the more questions I ask, the better off I will be.
Hi Terrified,
I'm glad that our site helps to reassure you.
We aren't saying that no disasters will occur in 2012. Disasters occur every year. What we are saying is that there is not a shred of evidence or indication that anything unusual is going to happen in 2012, or that it will be any different from 2009 or 2120. The claims of the doomsayers (who have absolutely no scientific background) are all either impossible, can't happen by 2012, or there is no indication that they will happen any time in the next millennium. There is no reason to fear December21, 2012 any more than you fear tomorrow or next week.
The reason that scientists say the world will end in a few billion years when the Sun enters its red giant phase is that we know scientifically that will occur. We don't know of anything that WILL happen before that. Of course something may happen before that, but we have no evidence of anything at this time. Everything claimed for 2012 has been invented by the doomsayers.
Keep asking. We'll keep answering.
For every person who asks, there are a hundred who come along later to read the answers you get.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind