End Of Earth Posponed
End Of Earth Posponed
Forum
» General Discussion / Per page discussions
» End Of Earth Posponed
Summary:
Here is a great article also indicating proof that the world will not end here:
(account deleted)I have to admit that I'm not impressed with the article, partly because it's written flippantly and carelessly. For example, the author of the article, Stephanie Pappas, describes the 2012 apocalypse as "over-hyped". Then what, to her, would be an appropriate amount of hype for it?
I distrust articles on 2012 that are written in this tone, from either side. Mainly because of my experience with this widely-cited dismissive debunking, which, as we now know , mis-characterizes the Galactic Equator as badly as Jenkins does.
We need to be careful not to fall into the trap of citing this article just because its assertions are favorable to us. Professor Aldan, the author of the book discussed in the article, suggests that the correlation between the Gregorian and Maya calendars is off by perhaps 50 or 100 years. Since the book has only just now been released, I doubt that Ms. Pappas has had time to study it. None of us in this forum has any basis for saying whether this claim -which would overturn decades of work on the Maya- is reasonable or not. And to judge by his title (professor of Chicana and Chicano Studies), Professor Aldan might well be a relative outsider to the field.
As we tend to tell the 2012 proponents, this is a case where peer review (despite its admitted defects) should be allowed to take its course.
"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain
There's better articles on the same subject, honestly. This was likely the one of the worst to link. This information is all over on better websites that went into deeper length. In fact, one of them even interviewed the man.
The book has been out for a short time now, so there's been plenty of time to read it. A week or two, if I recall.
The fact is, Jim, you need to understand that Aldan isn't the only individual to attack GMT. It has been under fire for a very long time. The fact that Aldan unearthed something this significant can't be overlooked, at all.
As well, Aldan has been researching this for much longer than you may be aware of. I might suggest some research into him, by anyone interested, and see if we can get some information and an opinion on this.
Regardless, I'll state again. GMT has been under fire for a very long time. This is nothing 'new', but the Silver Bullet being drawn on it is ground-breaking and worthy of review.
Oh, and by the way? 2012 is overhyped garbage. She's using a passive tone against it due to how outrageous the claims are. Don't fault the woman because you disagree with her stance. That's just ignorant on your part. Some people take 2012 for what is has always been: overhyped, unfounded nonsense.
Comparing Pappas tone to that of the galatic plane is… honestly, flatly, bluntly? Stupid. You just Apples and Oranges the poor girl, for no reason other than your own admitted dislike of her 'tone'.
This may explain your beef with me, as well. Still, open minded analysis, Jim. If you're going to write if off due to Pappas, why not look for the superior articles written?
Heck, Let Me Google That For You All:
http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/end-of-the-world-not-so-fast/
and
http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=2317
Are two sites with differing articles that cover this. The first one has a brief interview with him. The second has earlier details on it.
Finally, enjoy the interview itself.
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-sow-aldana-101410.aspx
Have at it with those.
You what I think we should all start worrying about climat change and global warming for are future children and stop looking for this site that BS you about end of earth.
The only reason they are saying the posponed is that they are losing the battle with 2012..
That's one way of looking at it, but I don't get the impression from reading any of those articles that anyone involved actually wants to just 'push the date back'. Some might, sure. These guys so far, I don't think so.
The point is that there is not only debate as to what the Maya believed would happen (I say 'debate', there is more evidence against the End of the World claims), but when in relation to our modern calendar's it would have happened.
Having just seen this video, "How to Calculate 1 Year on Earth" it doesn't really come as much of a surprise that the dates are still debatable.
Actually, I believe this guy has always refuted the 2012 nonsense. His stand really has nothing to do with a doomsday or prophecies of the ancient Mayan culture.
Scientists seem to be linking to this guy quite a bit this past week, but I don't think its to show that the 2012 date IS wrong. Rather I think that they are trying to show that nobody is certain about the translation of the Mayan Long Count to the calendar we use today…which also means that the 2012 doomsday proponents also don't know. Nobody is going to accept Aldana's hypothesis without peer review however, much like we ask from doomsayers to provide.
Here is a recent breakdown from Dr. Ian O'neill
Moo, I've known about the problems with the GMT correlation for years. I found out about them at least a year before I ever heard of "2012", from Aveni's classic Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico. Aveni is pretty frank about those problems here, in the online Google book of the updated version of Skywatchers. Since that book was written for the general public, I've never assumed that the list of problems presented therein was meant to be exhaustive.
The comments I made in my previous post dealt with the article linked by SpaceMike, exclusively. I stand by them. Now, having compared the articles you linked, to what Aveni wrote in the link I've just given, I have my doubts that Aldana is saying anything new.
As Cameron says here, this is something to be left for the peer reviewers to decide. I don't expect them to make up their minds within a week or two after the book comes out.
"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain
Right. Either way, no matter how you look at it, the possibility, or even fact, that the date could be off is sufficient enough information to bite the 2012 hoax in the butt. With out the so-called "supreme, all-knowing Maya accuracy", the majority of the woo-case is fired out the cargo bay.
Regardless, I >hope< this is correct. It would be the silver bullet we need to put an end to a lot of people's fears.
Moo, about your statement that
Regardless, I >hope< this is correct. It would be the silver bullet we need to put an end to a lot of people's fears.
Many people (including myself) have already told the 2012 faithful about the GMT correlation's difficulties, which have long been debated by authors of greater reputation than Professor Aldana. Those difficulties definitely make an impression upon some of the 2012 faithful, but they're no silver bullet.
As both Cameron and I have indicated, the merits of Professor Aldana's work are something for peer reviewers to decide, and that takes time. Therefore, if Aldana has some devastating new observation on the GMT correlation, we may not find out until months after 21 December 2012. In the meantime, we'd be well advised to not diminish our own credibility by promoting his views. Especially since there are already such good sources online about the GMT problems.
I can see two additional reasons to reserve our judgment about Professor Aldana's article. Both reasons have to do with observations made in this article about detecting bogus science, which article we link to on this page of ours.
The first two warning signs of bogus science cited in the article to which we link are
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media (rather than going through peer review), and
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
Now of course the articles about Professor Aldana's work don't show that he's actually done either of these things. However, those articles do leave me with the impression that he may not have gone through peer review. (I may be wrong on this, of course.) There's also an element in his interviews of "Boy, is the academic mainstream against my ideas!" (I may be wrong about this, too.) No smoking gun here; just reasons to be a little cautious.
"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain
Keep in mind, he did not say he was absolutely right on his claim. He even said he wants to do additional research on it. This is a good sign of character, as he did present his work with out peer review, as far as we know, but he did not say "I AM RIGHT SHUT UP!" like a lot of quacks do.
It seems he is welcoming any challenge, or support. But, you're right. We may not find out the truth behind it until long after 2012. Regardless, if all else fails, this is another thing we can use to help ease people.
I re-read the articles linked by SpaceMike and Moo about Professor Aldana's work, and noticed something I'd missed before.
Those articles refer to "the GMT constant", a numerical value used to convert dates from the Maya calendar to the Gregorian. That value gives 21 December 2012 as the "end date". The articles give the impression that mainstream scholars accept it overwhelmingly.
Strangely, the articles don't mention that a respectable minority prefer what's called the GMT+2 constant, according to which the "end date" is 23 December 2012. (See these links: 1, 2, 3.)
That difference of 2 days may not sound like much, but the 23 December date would be ruinous to the Maya-based claims about 2012, which is why John Major Jenkins fights against it tooth and nail. It's important to understand why.
All of the claims I can think of for supernatural significance of the Maya calendar's "end date" depend, somehow, on the fact that 21 December 2012 is a Solstice day. If the "end date" is actually 23 December, then all of Jenkin's woo goes down the drain.
To summarize, almost all mainstream scholars accept that the "end date" is either 21 or 23 December, but there's honest disagreement among mainstream investigators as to which is more likely to be right. The 23 December date has considerable support among mainstream scholars, and that date is lethal to the Maya-based 2012 woo. (Which is no fault of the Maya's.)
It's important to not let Professor Alanda's work distract us from the above.
"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain
I wanted to make the point of the previous post clear, so I decided to post my doubts about Aldana separately.
I'm a little concerned about this statement of his,
“One of the principal complications is that there are really so few scholars who know the astronomy, the epigraphy, and the archeology,” says Aldana.
And about these questions and answers in his interview:
Q: What role do you believe astronomy places in this field if study, and others like it?
A: We have to look at the data and appeal to internal coherence first and foremost… internal intellectual coherence demonstrating an astronomy in line with the religion, politics, and other intellectual pursuits of the time. When we find that, then we are on to something, as opposed to hoping that mathematical rigor is justification in and of itself. Much of this debate played out in the early years of "archaeoastronomy," but to some degree it is still important in the field today.Q: What was the most surprising thing you found in your research?
A: I suppose I'm most surprised that there's such reluctance to reconsider the GMT. Sure, it's been treated for decades, but it is still just an argument based on math, astronomy, and calendrics.
After re-reading Aveni's stuff on the calendar, and links like these from Mark Van Stone (1, 2, 3), I don't think the above-quoted statements and answers quite ring true. For one thing, the first of those links shows that mainstream researchers are quite open about difficulties with the GMT correlation. (Aldan doesn't even mention GMT+2.) The 2nd and 3rd show that Aldana is by no means exceptional in basing calendar conversions on more than "math, astronomy, and calendrics".
I think the Van Stone links show that we don't need to cite Aldana, and I'm concerned that Aldana might prove to be less than credible. An additional risk we run by citing him is that if he has indeed gone directly to the public instead of through peer review, then we'll be giving the 2012 faithful an opening for potent counterplay: "Why is it that 2012Hoax can cite non peer-reviewed sources, but we can't?"
I wonder whether Astrogeek might consider contacting Dr. Van Stone for some guidance on these matters?
"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain
One of the articles about the misinterpretation of the Mayan calendar led me to this article..and what puzzles me is the fact that it was written originally on 10 May 2010 and was updated yesterday….
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/35111/
Dunno what to think…..???
Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare
Hi elsgeorge,
Unfortunately, the article you ask us to comment on is so full of errors that I don't quite know where to begin. Perhaps one thing to mention is that the author seems unaware that 21 December 2012 is by no means universally accepted by mainline scholars as the "end date" of the Maya calendar. (See my posts above, in this thread.)
The author's assertion that the Mayans disappeared a long time ago certainly comes as news to me. I spend 4 hours a week volunteering as a math teacher in a school whose students are almost all Mayas of the Tsotsil and Tseltal language groups. I also know a few Mam, Tojolobal, and Cho'ol Maya in the city where I live (almost 50% of the population of which is Maya). One of my wife's best friends is a Tsotsil who married a Tseltal, and some of their sons look like they just stepped out of a mural at Palenque, put on blue jeans, and picked up a cell phone.
What the author says about the Galactic Alignment is classic 2012 woo:
What the Mayans had managed to discover—2,000 years before computers were able to—is that December 21, 2012, corresponds to the end of Earth’s precession rotation, which is a cycle nearly 26,000 years long. During the 2012 winter solstice, the sun will be positioned exactly at the Dark Rift of the Milky Way Galaxy, or what can be considered the galaxy “sitting” above Earth. Some astronomers define this galactic alignment as being like the opening of a door to heaven for Earth.
There's no way to define an end to a precession cycle. The rest of that paragraph is refuted here. I'd certainly challenge the author to provide a name of a single professional astronomer who says that the galactic alignment has any importance whatsoever.
Statements about solar activity are covered here.
"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain
Whew!!! Thank you thank you thank you Jim! When I saw the article of the misinterpretation, I was totally releived and felt I was in the best place I've been in, in a long time..and then this particular article rattled me yet again! I even had to ask Astro what he thought about it because it just threw me for a loop!
Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare
/forum/t-276430/end-of-earth-posponed#post-