Talk:2012 apocalypse/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Wapsi

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.Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 06:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.'} 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. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.'} 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.) --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.'} 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. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.'} 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)

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 Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 06:31, 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)

So the Earth will be sticking its south end out a little bit, how is that different? - π 01:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you just debunked it in its entirety, Pi. JS Leitch 01:58, 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)

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. | Eira suggests look left --->

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)

Those short sections at the end need far more content. ^bomination 10:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Could mention these guys who seem to be making plans. I got this as a link from people in the area who seem to know nothing about the project. Which could explain why The Sun article on the subject seems not to mention them.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

9th series of The X Factor, dear fuck it's going to be a bad decade... ^bomination 11:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

o_O?

http://www.escapeearth2012.com/ ^bomination 18:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

From their FAQ: "EscapeEarth2012™ sells novelty gifts and related merchandise (collectively, “Merchandise”)." "We at EscapeEarth2012™ will not be held responsible for any acts of violence, self harm or harm to others that somebody or some peoples might resort to as a result of our product. This site was made to be a funny gag gift and should not be taken seriously." I hate exploitative slime. --ZooGuard (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You can send it to 2012hoax.org. If you have a Twitter account, theirs is @2012hoax. --ZooGuard (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

At least the price is 'reasonable' - as with the Time Travel Fund. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Mayan to Maya"

Why? (dictionaries) --ZooGuard (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The predictions will be right

About what happens in London 'come the Olympics.' I predict: a) The London Transport unions will have a field day with strike brinkmanship, b) Certain right wing newspapers will predict doom and gloom involving masses of illegal immigrants, c) Assorted scare stories. And in the US Presidential elections there will be a major defeat for one of the Presidential candidates, while several candidates and politicians at lower levels will be caught out in dubious activities.^{— Unsigned, by: 86.173.239.201 / talk / contribs}

Ditto the Putin-Medeyev election.

Several notable politicians will be caught out in dubious activities (with persons not their spouses, excessive appropriation of funds and all their usual sins of omission and commission.

Several 'notable' sportsperson will be caught out with persons they are not married to/match fixing/going on a booze/drug fuelled rampage.

Any more dead cert predictions? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mayan predictions

According to a news article on Yahoo the latest discoveries show the Mayan 'apocalyptic prediction' to be little more than 'go back to square one and start the game again.' 212.85.6.26 (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

One year later

I believe that the mayan prophecy wasn't about a literal apocalypse, the actual end of the world, but kind of about the end of a cycle and the beginning of another, like the age of pisces, I believe it has something to do with astrological age, I watched interviews of experts in mayan culture speculating about this somewhere but unfortunately I can't remember where Lalumierebleue (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no "Mayan prophecy". It's an end of a calendar cycle. The New Age-ish interpretation as the dawn of "a new age" is already covered in the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Another prediction

...involves it being day after the 31st anniversary of the last episode of Blakes 7. 82.198.250.2 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't that the show where the larval stage of Jean-Luc Picard made his first appearance? Just what is a "spiv," anyway? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That was 'I, Claudius' (but Brian Blessed appeared in both series).

I don't see the connection with spivs, but see [1].

Blakes 7 is notable for having most of the lead characters being shot at the end of the last episode (all, by the sound effects on the closing titles). 82.198.250.70 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

... it is the actual 31st anniversary.

The only survivors are the chief baddie and the ornery computer. 82.198.250.70 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're British, male, and of the right age, Blakes 7 was notable for Servalan. Hot and evil! Yes! Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I seem to recall a former co-worker (Croydon public-school boy, and a thoroughgoing twit) claiming that Patrick Stewart played the lock-picker (hence spiv character, in his words) and only made it big after some voice coaching spiffed up his accent. WP tells me that was Michael Keating's character, and doesn't support the code-switching bit. I must be firing on three synapses again, sorry.

Either that, or the ex-public-school boy was full of it as usual. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I know some of the public shcool-boys from the Croydon area. I suspect you're right. ^gnostic 19:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Cover story (please do not archive this section)

Dunno if we can get this to gold in two weeks, but it's worth a try dammit. What's lacking? - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For the world to actually end? ^pathetic 16:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's on the cover! ^sshole 17:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do this on the 21st. For the lulz. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh totally. ^pathetic 17:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Humorless fascist^sociopath 18:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Im going to be laughing my ass of the day of "the apocalypse" watching all the frantic maniacs blogging about how their going to spend their last hours. Im going to do nothing, because i still have a good 60+ years to live and ill take the whole apocalypse thing with a grain of sodium chloride (aka salt) ^{— Unsigned, by: Alwaystruth / talk / contribs}

I think it's worth gold now. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Since no-one has an objection, I'm just going to go through the goldiferication-wannabe process - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think those one-sentence sections at the bottom could do with some expanding. Surely there's more interesting stuff in the references. I'll try my hand at those later, just have something to do for the next hour or so. ^gnostic 13:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There are times when it doens't have to be gold for a cover. we really should have this up as a cover on the random hit list, just cause it's so timely, and in 2 days my facebook will be filled with idiots! Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources

[2] Good stuff from Exposing PseudoAstronomy - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for easy reference

• The topic is highly relevant to RW's mission. DONE
• Article is essentially a "go to" resource for the topic at hand.
• Article covers all aspects of the topic at hand in-depth.
• It is fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.
• Where necessary and possible, the article is supported by others that are of a good quality (e.g., homeopathy and water memory).
• The cover status has been discussed and agreed on the talk page. This last criterion is the most important.

Sophie^Wilder 12:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "covers all aspects", "in-depth" and "supported by other of good quality", I suggest comparing RationalWiki's coverage to the 2012hoax.org wiki.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all relative, though. I don't think a direct comparison between a single article and an entire wiki - given that this topic is huge - is a fair one. ^pathetic 13:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If we are talking about only the article, at the very least the same points should be covered. My point is, if we take the supporting articles that are supposed to debunk various details, such as Planet X, this is still away from gold.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture

I think only the movie should be left, as it is directly responsible for some of the popularity of the idea. (Early promotional materials included the slogan "Google 2012". You can guess the results.)--ZooGuard (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Humorless fascist^sociopath 13:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

More reasons why the 2012 apocalypse won't occur

1) London Transport line closures for upgrading are already in place.

2) The royal sproglet(s) - red-tops and the heritage (ie 'cheap tat') industry are already planning things out.

3) Sir Patrick Moore is going to sort things out.

Any more? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. Sophie^Wilder 14:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The suggestions are 'slightly less implausible' than some of the reasons proposed as to why the 2012 Apocalypse will happen.

Should have included Sir Bernard Lovell, Neil Armstrong and Ptolemy-the-cat in point number 3. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The cat can be readily websearched. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What moment is the timer at the top of the page counting towards?

At the moment it's 8 am AEST, and the countdown device says the end is "4 days and 1 hour" away. According to 2012hoax.org, "the solstice will occur on 21st December 2012 at 11:11:37.4 UTC". But right now it's 10 *pm* according to GMT. So is the counter out by 12 hours?^{— Unsigned, by: 118.208.37.105 / talk / contribs}

The countdown is to 21 December. The solstice claim is only one of the numerous claims attached to that date. The base claim - the end of a cycle of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar on that date - does not concern the solstice.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

UTC I might add. Man of Perspective 08:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

GMT = UTC ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"The countdown is to 21 December. The solstice claim is only one of the numerous claims attached to that date."

That the solstice occurs on 21 December is not just a "claim", it's a fact.

Presumably what you mean is that people give diverse reasons as to why 21 December 2012 is special, many of which do not mention the solstice.

"The base claim - the end of a cycle of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar on that date - does not concern the solstice."

I'm not aware of any Mayan legacy artefact which directly demonstrates a connection. However, it is more likely that the end of the cycle falls exactly on the solstice by design rather than by accident. In my opinion, where we are in the precession of the equinoxes provides further, circumstantial evidence in favor of this interpretation, but that would be a longer argument.

Similarly, I don't have any direct evidence that the person who coded up the "doomsday" clock for this wiki intended for it to count down to the moment of solstice, but the moment of solstice is 11:11 GMT and the clock is apparently counting down to 23:11 GMT, so it would appear to be a simple confusion between a.m. and p.m. 130.102.158.13 (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Template:Doomsday is specifically set to count down to 2012-12-21, no hour/minute specified. So, it's probably counting to 00:00 of that date.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Health and Safety advice

The UK Fire Brigade suggest you have fire alarms on each floor to monitor the fire and brimstone as it rises.

One of the UK motoring bodies suggests you keep your eyes on the road while the apocalypse happens, and so avoid accidents.

Any other good advice? ('Please stand behind the yellow lines until the train/apocalypse comes to a halt, and let passengers/the Four Horsemen, the Woman of the Apocalypse and all associates off first...') 82.198.250.69 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it too soon to say the apocalypse did not happen?

Hi! I'm a long-time reader, first-time poster.

It has been well over an hour (as of my time of posting this) since the supposed time of apocalypse. (The summer/winter solstice at 11:11 am GMT)

Should the page be changed to say that the 2012 apocalypse did not happen?

Critically speaking, I base my request/suggestion on the assumption that doomsday was at 11:11 am GMT. So... if my assumption is wrong, please disregard this post.

I added that to the page. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Proxima. However, I still think we'd need to wait a bit before dismissing the doomsday hypothesis completely. Wait until it is no longer December 21st anywhere in the world. Y'know just to be safe. Your opinion? Sorry, if I seem paranoid, by the way.^{— Unsigned, by: ‎122.107.193.252 / talk / contribs}

Can I be first to send 'Happy not the end of the World' greetings? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep! You may, 82.44.143.26.

The end of the world

Is suffering delays due to unforseen circumstances/leaves on the line/the entire list of excuses to be found at [3], [4] and any other lists you find. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

southern solstice

The "southern solstice" is the solstice which takes place when the Sun is farthest south. That is, it is the solstice which is known to people in the northern hemisphere as the "winter solstice", and to those in the southern hemisphere as the "summer solstice". "Southern solstice" serves as an unambiguous, world-wide name (also, by the way, working for people who live near the equator). TomS TDotO (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be retitled to "2012 non-apocalypse"?

Just a thought. 84.198.53.190 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer "2012 'apocalypse'". Speaking of which...--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you know it didn't happen? The earth still existing is just a theory. 74.134.243.62 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Next apocalypse

Has the date of the next apocalypse been announced yet? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There's all of those. Plus there's the prophecy of Saint Malachy, who (I think) says the world will end at the death of the current Pope. So yay, I guess. Kungo Gumi (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Benny's problems include (a) a popular predecessor, (b) himself - and not just 'sounding like whats-his-name from 'Allo 'Allo and (c) his successor.

I suppose it takes some time to write even 'an instant book covering a multitude of non-sequeteur random scatter facts proving the next apocalypse will occur on (roll relevant Dungeon and Dragons dice to choose date).'

As someone said - those who divide the world into the saved and the damned are, for some peculiar reason, always among the saved. (rephrasing from memory). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Potential 2013 appocalypse

When Benny made his announcement the Vatican was hit by lightning: how often does 'the collection of buildings' get struck?

Within a few days there was a low probability conjunction of a near miss 'middling meteorite' and also a meteor event.

Mount Etna is currently erupting.

There are various political scandals and claimed political scandals around.

Has anyone brought these together into an apocalypse prediction? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Doomsday template

Several things: 1) the lower border is overlapping the white text. 2) how do we know the apocalypse has ended as opposed to still happening? Nothing seems to be really different since the start of it.

Please comment. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The 2012 apocalypse actually happened

... but it was a #completely different planet# (possibly Golgafrincham and possibly due to a "mutant star goat." 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The world is so stupid that they haven't noticed that the world ended

We Americans are too complacent, we know the apocalypse happened but we continue worrying about our national dept, and the NSA. You don't need privacy in the apocalypse. Also, I've noticed that all news sources and world governments aren't acknowledging it. What are they trying to hide? Did they capture a solar flare? did the Mayans return and order something from the Taco Bell Volcano menu? Only time will tell.^{— Unsigned, by: Crustacean27 / talk / contribs}

I would like to respond to this but unfortunately I don't understand it.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in what way do you not understand?Crustacean27 (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)