Talk:2012 apocalypse
David Gerard (Talk | contribs) (→What's missing: new section) |
(→What's missing: a link to 2012hoax.org?) |
||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
* Feels like it needs MOAR of er something. | * Feels like it needs MOAR of er something. | ||
Anyone else? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC) | Anyone else? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Can't we just redirect this to http://2012hoax.org? Or fork their articles (it's a wiki)? --[[User:ZooGuard|ZooGuard]] ([[User talk:ZooGuard|talk]]) 18:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:54, 30 July 2010
Nice to see a fellow Wapsi fan. Not sure how he's gonna stretch this out another four years, and where the heck has Tepoz been lately, what with the librarian in the house and all? --Kels 14:26, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- At this point I'm kind of lost. Probably need to go back through the archive and get things set in my mind again, but I'm really just reading in the hope that things will start making sense again.WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 06:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Contents |
I just moved this here:
- " (one wonders how the Mayan priests had enough time to calculate astronomical events for several millenia)"
This seems like a completely gratuitous and even for RW, silly question. We don't wonder how our scientists (After all the Mayan priests were also their scientists) have the time to calculate the age of the universe, many billion years old, or have the time to figure out how long until gravity either pulls us into the Sun or tosses us out into the cold, so why be confused about the Mayans? Pseudo indeed.
Carptrash 16:38, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- " (one wonders why the Mayans bothered making a calender 2012, when they were in something like 30 CE)"
Pretty much the same reason. Both comments were dropped in by some BoN, and don't make much sense. ħuman
17:18, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- That was me. And those are legitament questions. And one really does wonder at which the Mayan priests get bored and say, "What the heck, I'm getting bored, this isn't doing anything of value, etc." As for our scientists, well, they have more free time, don't they. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistoris GilliamM (no, I'm not!) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- That's not even a meaningful question. The reason their calendar has 2012 in it is because it can count that high. You might as well ask why our calendar has the year 8472 in it. EVDebs 20:42, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- My point is that they had no reason to go past 2012 (or heck, even that far), and that that is why they stopped counting. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistoris GilliamM (no, I'm not!) 20:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- I don't see your point. You're criticizing them for creating an open-ended design. They created it that way for the same reason the Oxford English Dictionary adds dozens of neologisms every year -- someone might need the information. Would you perhaps prefer they used a uniformly flat address space? Does it even matter? While trying to figure out how they derived it would certainly be interesting (I've seen some amusingly tortured speculations on the Babylonians' use of base-60 measures), the reason they did it in the first place was that there was no compelling reason not to in the first place, and a few advantages to doing it that way. EVDebs 20:48, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- What I mean is, they had no reason to tell what astronomical events would occur 2013. Do we have astronomical calenders for the year 4000? (and I mean predicting every phase of the moon, every esclipse, etc.) --"ConservapediaSubwayResistoris GilliamM (no, I'm not!) 20:51, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- We could if we wanted to, and they, for whatever reason, wanted to -- it's called "basic science". Orbital mechanics are pretty well understood, as are the mathematics of our date system, so we could do it to a fairly high level of certainty. I can assure you that someone, somewhere, has calculated planetary conjunctions and solar eclipses out several thousand years, up to the point where orbital drift and gravitational effects render the picture too murky to go further. This is information no one alive might ever need to know, but it's still good to have around in case something comes up a hundred or a thousand years in the future. Most assuredly the Mayan astronomers were following the same logic. (Heck, who knows -- some of their descendants are probably looking through telescopes doing something similar at this very moment.) EVDebs 21:01, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- Perhaps the priests go sick of making calenders, procrastinated, and used the excuse 'the world's gonna end' as an excuse. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistoris GilliamM (no, I'm not!) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (EST)
- Perhaps they got sick of making colanders, quit washing their veggies, and succumbed to horribly painful cases of food poisoning? ħuman
22:29, 20 January 2009 (EST)
- Perhaps they got sick of making colanders, quit washing their veggies, and succumbed to horribly painful cases of food poisoning? ħuman
- Perhaps the priests go sick of making calenders, procrastinated, and used the excuse 'the world's gonna end' as an excuse. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistoris GilliamM (no, I'm not!) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (EST)
- We could if we wanted to, and they, for whatever reason, wanted to -- it's called "basic science". Orbital mechanics are pretty well understood, as are the mathematics of our date system, so we could do it to a fairly high level of certainty. I can assure you that someone, somewhere, has calculated planetary conjunctions and solar eclipses out several thousand years, up to the point where orbital drift and gravitational effects render the picture too murky to go further. This is information no one alive might ever need to know, but it's still good to have around in case something comes up a hundred or a thousand years in the future. Most assuredly the Mayan astronomers were following the same logic. (Heck, who knows -- some of their descendants are probably looking through telescopes doing something similar at this very moment.) EVDebs 21:01, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- What I mean is, they had no reason to tell what astronomical events would occur 2013. Do we have astronomical calenders for the year 4000? (and I mean predicting every phase of the moon, every esclipse, etc.) --"ConservapediaSubwayResistoris GilliamM (no, I'm not!) 20:51, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- I don't see your point. You're criticizing them for creating an open-ended design. They created it that way for the same reason the Oxford English Dictionary adds dozens of neologisms every year -- someone might need the information. Would you perhaps prefer they used a uniformly flat address space? Does it even matter? While trying to figure out how they derived it would certainly be interesting (I've seen some amusingly tortured speculations on the Babylonians' use of base-60 measures), the reason they did it in the first place was that there was no compelling reason not to in the first place, and a few advantages to doing it that way. EVDebs 20:48, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- My point is that they had no reason to go past 2012 (or heck, even that far), and that that is why they stopped counting. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistoris GilliamM (no, I'm not!) 20:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- That's not even a meaningful question. The reason their calendar has 2012 in it is because it can count that high. You might as well ask why our calendar has the year 8472 in it. EVDebs 20:42, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- That was me. And those are legitament questions. And one really does wonder at which the Mayan priests get bored and say, "What the heck, I'm getting bored, this isn't doing anything of value, etc." As for our scientists, well, they have more free time, don't they. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistoris GilliamM (no, I'm not!) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (EST)
I've just stumpled upon the actual reason. 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
" which extends by a digit on the date corresponding to our December 21st 2012 CE" what on earth does this mean? ħuman
03:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is weird. Do you think we need to discuss the seasonal cycles? The fourth on is completed on December 21st 2012 CE. - π 04:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just noticed one of the citations is wrong. It talks about Midwinter, ignoring the fact that the Mayan's lived in the southern hemisphere. - π 04:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Could we also debunk some of the claims of what would asplode on dec 21 2012?
Like for instance the claim that Betelgeuse will explode.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message801497/pg1— Unsigned, by: Orderbel / talk / contribs
- Beetlejuice asplodes every time I step on a beetle. ħuman
04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It may very well explode in 2012, but given it is 430 light years away, it will not hurt us. - π 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but 2442 might suck for our grand-larvae... ħuman
04:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- If it had exploded 430 years ago, and the Maya had somehow had the technology to figure out it was going to... OH MY GOD IT ALL MAKES SENSE WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 06:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but 2442 might suck for our grand-larvae... ħuman
- It may very well explode in 2012, but given it is 430 light years away, it will not hurt us. - π 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
About the galaxy alignment, wouldn't that happen once a year any way? - π 01:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it supposedly happens on the solstice (or something) that year. JS Leitch 01:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Stupidity
Ah. Didn't notice that up there... but, does it really belong? That section is more of a straightforward description of the Mayan calendar. The eclipse thing kind of comes out of nowhere, don't you think? JS Leitch 01:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well make it more obvious if you like maybe a level three section inside the calendar description. - π 01:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Spelling
Also, are "Mayan" and "Mayans" even correct? Wikipedia just says "Maya". JS Leitch 01:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mayan is the correct adjective. My dictionary lists both Maya and Mayan as a noun. - π 02:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, all right. I still say it looks funny. JS Leitch 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- My suspicion is Maya is technically right, but people have used Mayan so long it is recognised as a word. If you want to replace all occurrences then go for it. Just keep it consistent. - π 02:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, all right. I still say it looks funny. JS Leitch 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The Restored Church of God
Here's more rubbish inspired work from The Restored Church of God, see Is the End Near?.
Proxima Centauri 17:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
In 2012
The London Olympics Apocalypse will occur.
The Millennium-Bug Dome will finally flip over and walk away on its legs.
Public Transport unions will go on strike (no knowledge of statistics, crystal ball gazing or betting shops required for this one).
Six different red-top publicity stunts, sorry political scandals, will occur.
And the rest of us will go on living as before. — Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.3 / talk / contribs 18:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. -- Nx / talk 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
.... and on 22 December people will start writing the next 'apocalypse whenever' books.
Any suggestions as to what? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Bumping up to silver
I like this one. It looks good and is pretty comprehensive by our standards.
bomination 13:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Totally. - π 14:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
What's missing
Need more cover articles. I just polished this a bit, but I can see lacking:
- History of the woo itself
- Terence McKenna and similar drugfucked nutters
- When the idea was mooted and when it entered pop. culture
- Pepper with cites. (The Wikipedia article is good for cribbing references.)
- Feels like it needs MOAR of er something.
Anyone else? - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can't we just redirect this to http://2012hoax.org? Or fork their articles (it's a wiki)? --ZooGuard (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)