They also had loads of stupid ideas.
I think that Mayan calander had to stop somewhere... If you live to 2013 and nothing happens, will you be disappointed? And would that cause you to rethink anything?
Hundreds of 'Missing' Black Holes Found
- Thread starter Costanza
- Start date
I think that Mayan calander had to stop somewhere... If you live to 2013 and nothing happens, will you be disappointed? And would that cause you to rethink anything?
Have u ever seen a black hole what color is space black black hole shit aint there its some fake shit white people made up just like the invisible man you know what its an air pocket in your house if you walk into it its gone make your lungs fall out i know you cant see but trust me its there. Me and my people have done studies on air pockets and they are dangerous so be careful
u cant see a blackhole with the naked eye. u need a telescope, black hole have a strong gravitational pull which not even light can't escape. and its not a actual hole, its a shape of a planet cause its a dead star. its surrounded by gas and other syht. it bends images around it which makes it look like a hole when in reality its not.
u should go back to 7th grade.
Cold spot could be relic of Big Bang
Cold spot could be relic of Big Bang
By Julie Steenhuysen
Fri Oct 26, 10:03 AM ET
A cold spot in the oldest radiation in the universe could be the first sign of a cosmic glitch that might have originated shortly after the Big Bang, British and Spanish scientists said on Thursday.
They think this spot -- detected on satellite maps of microwave radiation -- might be a cosmic defect or texture, a holdover from the universe's infancy. But they said their theory would need confirmation.
Such defects or textures, they theorize, reflect a flaw in the pattern of the universe as it formed -- think of a snag in pantyhose or a flaw in a diamond.
"If the cold spot is indeed proven to be a texture, it will completely change our view of how the universe evolved following the Big Bang," said Mike Hobson, of the Astrophysics Group at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, whose study appears in the journal Science.
Hobson, Neil Turok and colleagues at the Institute of Physics at Cantabria based this theory on an analysis of a large cold spot in the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is basically the heat glow left over from the formation of the universe.
The cold spot was discovered in 2003 by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe satellite, and its presence has been the subject of many theories, said Al Kogut of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
Kogut, who did not work on the paper, said if this texture theory is proven, it would offer a window into the universe shortly after the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago, showing places where the universe was expanding and cooling.
"If you imagine water cooling down in an ice cube tray, it will make a transition from a liquid state to solid crystal," Kogut said in a telephone interview.
If that occurs very slowly, he said, that transition goes very smoothly, producing crystal clear ice. But if it goes very fast, the crystal aligns in different directions. Where they don't agree, a crack appears, he said.
This paper "is basically saying this cold spot is a relic of high-energy physics that occurred immediately after the Big Bang," Kogut said.
"They're claiming they've found one of these things and it could be the tip of the iceberg," he said.
But Kogut, like the study's authors, said he would like more proof. "The evidence is encouraging, but far from compelling," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071026/sc_nm/universe_defect_dc
I think it's pretty stupid to call this a defect. Universal rule #1 is shit happens and rule #2 is shit evolves. I don't know how you could call the way it has evolved a "defect;" I seriously see no justification for that word, as used in the link, or "glitch." It's just that our understanding was defective, perhaps, but this seems like calling the Grand Canyon defective simply because I think it should be a lake.
Cold spot could be relic of Big Bang
By Julie Steenhuysen
Fri Oct 26, 10:03 AM ET
A cold spot in the oldest radiation in the universe could be the first sign of a cosmic glitch that might have originated shortly after the Big Bang, British and Spanish scientists said on Thursday.
They think this spot -- detected on satellite maps of microwave radiation -- might be a cosmic defect or texture, a holdover from the universe's infancy. But they said their theory would need confirmation.
Such defects or textures, they theorize, reflect a flaw in the pattern of the universe as it formed -- think of a snag in pantyhose or a flaw in a diamond.
"If the cold spot is indeed proven to be a texture, it will completely change our view of how the universe evolved following the Big Bang," said Mike Hobson, of the Astrophysics Group at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, whose study appears in the journal Science.
Hobson, Neil Turok and colleagues at the Institute of Physics at Cantabria based this theory on an analysis of a large cold spot in the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is basically the heat glow left over from the formation of the universe.
The cold spot was discovered in 2003 by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe satellite, and its presence has been the subject of many theories, said Al Kogut of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
Kogut, who did not work on the paper, said if this texture theory is proven, it would offer a window into the universe shortly after the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago, showing places where the universe was expanding and cooling.
"If you imagine water cooling down in an ice cube tray, it will make a transition from a liquid state to solid crystal," Kogut said in a telephone interview.
If that occurs very slowly, he said, that transition goes very smoothly, producing crystal clear ice. But if it goes very fast, the crystal aligns in different directions. Where they don't agree, a crack appears, he said.
This paper "is basically saying this cold spot is a relic of high-energy physics that occurred immediately after the Big Bang," Kogut said.
"They're claiming they've found one of these things and it could be the tip of the iceberg," he said.
But Kogut, like the study's authors, said he would like more proof. "The evidence is encouraging, but far from compelling," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071026/sc_nm/universe_defect_dc
I think it's pretty stupid to call this a defect. Universal rule #1 is shit happens and rule #2 is shit evolves. I don't know how you could call the way it has evolved a "defect;" I seriously see no justification for that word, as used in the link, or "glitch." It's just that our understanding was defective, perhaps, but this seems like calling the Grand Canyon defective simply because I think it should be a lake.
I don't know what your problem is but the way you're coming off seems as if you're using backhanded sarcasm.
I have said already that I don't think the world will end, I merely said that there could be a cataclysm of some sort. If you weren't to busy being full of yourself you would of been able to ascertain that information.
And who am I to question the accuracy of their calender? thus far it has been beyond accurate and there is no indication that they completely fabricated the 2012 prophecy. And according to the special done on the History Channel there is evidence to support that the calender does continue after 2012. Our interpretation of it may be vastly different from theres but like I have said something will happen, and it has been scientifically proven.
I doubt the end of the world will occur, even the Mayans themselves said it will be the beginning of a new age and the END of this one.
It's all you, man. I wasn't being sarcastic at all and you didn't answer my question.
"Who am I to question the accuracy of their calender?" You're a human being, apparently with as capable a mind as anyone else, so it should not be beyond you to question anything. If the calender was extended to three times it's length, would it be beyond you to say "At some point they were going to have to stop"? I'll go ahead and watch the special you posted this weekend, but I never said or inferred that you said the world would end. I just asked you what would you say if 2012 rolls around, and what you think happen does not?
You actually went a bit further in your adamance, saying "something will happen and it has been scientifically proven." You believe this; I get it. Here's why I'm interested: William Miller started the Adventist movement in the 1840s, from which we get today's Seven Day Adventists. He predicted Christ would come back between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. They had mathematical calculations based on the Bible and this guy had almost one hundred thousand people behind him. They went up on mountains and waited for it to happen; it didn't. They recalculated, extended the deadline to October, but it still didn't happen. His followers called it "The Great Disappointment" when the world did not end.
I see the potential for the same thing with 2012. Of course, you believe that the majority of the world is in for some big surprises because you know something they don't. That's cool and I wasn't arguing with you- like I said, I didn't watch the documentary you posted (I've had a lot of shit to do the past month). But damn, don't get enflamed or insecure when someone just asks you to look at the flip side of it. What I was asking was IF you lived to see what you were so certain of happening not happen, what would be your reaction?
Last edited:
constanza said:
Aight
I'm sure you mean 2012 and not 2003 like you placed. I have no definite clue as to if anything will occur but in my personal opinion I do think something will happen. It may not be immediate but gradual. We have plenty of time to speculate by I see too many dots connecting and things occurring at a feverish pitch for me not to discount the possibility of a doom and gloom scenario but at the same time I highly doubt the world ends.
like the Mayans stated, it will be the end of the cycle we're living in now and the birth of a new one.
constanza said:
What I mean't by that comment is that it is widely known in the scientific community that our sun will align with the center of the Milky Way, that is the event I was alluding to and that will occur around the time of December 21st 2012 (give or take a day).
constanza said:
I don't think this story is a good comparison. William Millers calculations are nowhere close to the accuracy of Mayan astronomy and mathematical skills and prowess.
constanza said:
I didn't flip out, I just took your comments the wrong way. If I flipped out like you proclaimed than I would of called you names or insinuated you 're an emasculated individual and I didn't
constanza said:
I can't answer that because I truly believe something will happen. I can't explain why I feel this way.
I would agree. I was comparing the outcome, not the credibility, of the movements.
I didn't flip out, I just took your comments the wrong way. If I flipped out like you proclaimed than I would of called you names or insinuated you 're an emasculated individual and I didn't
Man, you test me, you really do... "Don't get enflamed or insecure when someone just asks you to look at the flip side of it." I never said you flipped out, I was referring to the difficulty I had in asking you to consider the
flip-- opposite, conflicting, disagreeing-- side.
All right then. I guess it's a religion. In that sense, I compare it to 1844.
I'll respect your belief, if that's what it has morphed into. But respect the fact that this was started as a science thread, so it was okay for me to ask questions.
It's all good man
I still have reservations about comparing it to the 1844 incident. Besides the Mayan 2012 prophecy their other predictions have been so dead on that it's eerie. I would list examples but I can't remember some of them off the top of my head. They at least have a track record of success where ole William didn't. That is one differing aspect between the two.
never fails
