Customer Discussions > Science forum

Eclipses and Earthquakes


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 107 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 10:15:52 PM PDT
Re Skelton, 6-4 2:36 PM: "They could have predicted the return of auroras." To the extent that these are coupled with the sunspot cycle, possibly. But auroras are not visible in the area in question -- it is too far south.

"an ancient culture ... after seeing a massive comet in 1006BC and and then at 1BC couldn't make a prediction for 1006AD and 2012AD?" Correct. No one in those days could keep records that long -- and identifying the comet as a repeating phenomenon would not be possible.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 10:40:23 PM PDT
Part of the reason would be the difficulty in knowing it was actually the same comet each time. It does not suffice merely to see two instances.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 1:47:54 AM PDT
@Robert A. Saunders

During the Carrington event, the biggest solar storm of the modern era, auroras were seen as far south as Panama, Hawaii and Cuba. And as far north as Santiago in Chile. Such rarity means that a pattern could have been spotted. But with only one in the modern era, it's hard for us to see a pattern yet.

Ancient cultures certainly could have kept records for long periods of time. (Note I am only saying could - it's just a possibility, not something I am proving). The Chinese were good at keeping astronomical records, for example. Ptolemy claimed his astronomical calculations were based on observations of his ancestors spanning 800 years - we certainly don't have that!

Unfortunately most proof of such has most likely gone missing. The Spanish burned thousands of Mayan books, with only four surviving. Likewise the Library of Alexandria lost perhaps hundreds of thousands of books - it was destroyed four times by non-Egyptian cultures.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 1:52:24 AM PDT
@ Eugene R. Walker:

Two instances would have been enough for them to guess, three to be pretty sure. People back then didn't have to prove things like scientists do today. And at a thousand years apart, if an ancient scientist declared a return date, he'd be long gone if/when it didn't happen, so it was an easy declaration to make.

Time can prove predictions and prophecies coming true. I've been trying to guess what possible meaning the Mayan calendar had, before Dec 2012 comes around.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 3:35:19 AM PDT
Lj3d says:
Declaring something and having it turn out a thousand years later to be more than a coincidence are two different things. In my experience and research from time to time, I have yet to find anything that can be called a verifiable and consistent record of prophecy. Especially anything we discover after the fact when we cannot be 100% certain whether someone might have been making a prophetic claim from say comet sightings of the original person who wasn't claiming any special prophetic ability. The prophecies I have been aware of are always too vague to be considered as serious prophecies IMO.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 3:53:48 AM PDT
Oh, for sure. The best case for serious prophecy coming true over long periods of time would be the Prophecy of the Popes. But that's most likely self-fulfilling (watch out for "Peter the Roman" being the next Pope).

I'm not really interested in prophecy. But if it were to be scientific prediction for hundreds of years ahead of time, well I can't think of any other examples, not even any that failed. The possibilities I have come up with would be truly unique, and therefore unlikely. Possible, but only remotely so. Still, the Long Count calendar is also totally unique. Thousands of years long, with an end date (complete end, or start again, your choice). Nothing else like it is known of.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 4:19:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 5, 2012 4:20:24 AM PDT
Lj3d says:
I don't know what your expertise level on the Mayan calendar is, but most scholars of the ancient Maya do not believe there is anything even remotely related to a 2012 prophecy in their calendar. Part of the whole thing included predictions of a so called planet Nibiru. The original claim was by some psychic woman in 1996 who said Nibiru would pass very close or collide with earth in 2003. I wasn't aware of this claim until 2002, and when told of it, I told the person that Nibiru would already be visible in the night sky if it were about to intersect our orbit by 2003. Well, 2003 came and went and we are all still here. But that didn't stop followers of such claims. Now Nibiru is supposed to pass or collide at 2012s end. A technical glitch must have prevented the 2003 collision, lol.

I don't put much stock in these fringe claims or ideas.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 6:09:19 AM PDT
All we know about 2012, in terms of the Maya, is that their Long Count calendar ends this December. 90% of what you can find online, or even in books for that matter, about 2012 is rubbish. Nibiru is a great example. Yet still the calendar ends in December. Either the date was randomly plucked from somewhere, or it was meaningful to the Maya. I'm focusing on the possibilities of the latter.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 7:07:21 AM PDT
Lj3d says:
It could have been meaningful to the Maya while having nothing to do with some world apocalypse. Could have been a warning about their world to their people. At the end of the day, absent conclusive evidence...its just speculation IMO.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 7:21:02 AM PDT
Totally just speculation. However, their Popol Vuh mentions the wiping out of the humans species, and there's plenty of evidence for global cataclysms in the past, as well as the great risk that solar storms pose for western society. It would be inefficient for everyone to be worried about this, but I am - at least somebody should be looking into the possibilities rather than 7 billion people sitting on their collective, apathetic, self-righteous, invulnerable ass. If there's a billion-to-one chance of humans becoming extinct, I'd like to try and stop that. And I find it sad and embarrassing that few others feel the same way :(

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 8:38:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 5, 2012 8:40:06 AM PDT
Lj3d says:
If you have no idea what the so called 2012 catastrophe entails, how would you stop it?

I've seen enough of these predictions fail, and no successes in my lifetime to know not to put much stock into it. Remember Y2K? I had people ask me what to do because I'm the computer geek in my circle of friends and family. I told them do abslolutely nothing. Several years ago, 2005 I think...some people in the space.com forum were freaking out because some guy put up a survival gear website and claimed a comet was headed for a collision with earth.

Astronomers had a sequence of images of the comet. I posted a link to the images and said "You can tell there will be no collision because the comet has changed positions. If all it were doing was getting larger, then you have a problem". Nothing happened as evidenced by the fact were still here. I've seen Halleys comet hype, Hale Bopp hype. Remember the Heavens gate cult suicides? I've seen California supposed to fall into the sea not once, but twice. It was predicted in the late 1970s for a 1982 event. Then in the late 1990s for a 2000 event IIRC. Last year some old religious fundy predicted a May 2012 end of the world that has come and gone.

I've seen other claims of catastrophe go by that I don't even recall now.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 9:35:02 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Robert D. Skelton said:
"However, their Popol Vuh mentions the wiping out of the humans species,"

Watch out, Ragnarok is coming.

"and there's plenty of evidence for global cataclysms in the past, as well as the great risk that solar storms pose for western society. It would be inefficient for everyone to be worried about this, but I am - at least somebody should be looking into the possibilities rather than 7 billion people sitting on their collective, apathetic, self-righteous, invulnerable ass. If there's a billion-to-one chance of humans becoming extinct, I'd like to try and stop that. And I find it sad and embarrassing that few others feel the same way :("

There are plenty of people that worry about these things. They look for near earth objects, and monitor viruses, and watch the Yellowstone earthquakes. They don't waste their time with Mayan calendars.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 11:56:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 6, 2012 2:21:44 PM PDT
barbW says:
The Mayans might have estimated that the position of the Sun at the December solstice in 2012 would be 'dangerously' close to their dark areas of the Milky Way (a dangerous location in their mythical stories). The Sun might be damaged or rejuvenated as it gets too close. They couldn't know that the Dark Nebula is actually at least 130 million times farther away than the Sun is.

They had records and they could extrapolate the apparent path of the Sun in the sky into the future.

The Sun is never positioned over the center of our galaxy, so that was a bad guess by later writers, but it seemed very exciting to them that the Mayans were 'wise' enough to know about the center of our galaxy so long ago.. They didn't, it's all hype and misinformation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 12:01:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 5, 2012 12:01:35 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
We don't even know the precise center of the galaxy. One of the common elements in these "ancients predicting our future" ideas is that something always has to be at the center, or pointed to the center and so on.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 12:23:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 5, 2012 12:25:09 PM PDT
barbW says:
The precise center, no, I guess not. You mean the geometric center?

The stars around the SMBH have been imaged and their speed gives us the mass of the object. But the SMBH is quite a distance from the 'center' using globulars for an estimate.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 12:32:10 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
I recall seeing images of the stars around the SMBH. Were going to need loads better resolution to establish the precise center of the galaxy which is so large, it may not be as symmetrical as it would appear from a distance. We cannot see our own galaxy so using another for reference, they are so far away that they may be just slightly offset relatively speaking due to variance in the lengths of their spiral arms.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 12:43:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 5, 2012 12:45:47 PM PDT
barbW says:
Yes, recently it was surmised that ours is a barred galaxy, with a more prominent bar than previous expected. The bar extends 15000 light years behind the stars of Cassiopeia (from us). I don't know the latest on this.

added; there could have been a dangerous jet in the past coming from the SMBH.

Posted on Jun 5, 2012 1:17:51 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
I'd read about that not long ago. I usually get Astronomy magazine to catch up on whats going on in that world. Wonder what would have made the jet stop? Assuming there was one long ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 9:07:21 AM PDT
barbW says:
"Wonder what would have made the jet stop? Assuming there was one long ago."

After a time, jets dwindle down with only sporadic flareups, but the structure they induce lasts a long time. Since that planet in M4 was calculated to be over 12 billion years old, our galaxy is probably almost that old. Globulars like M4 might have formed first, I don't know the latest thinking about that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 9:26:05 AM PDT
Lj3d: Ultimately, I know of no scientific data that supports any theories on eclipses causing increased earthquakes.

You're raining on his parade, L3. Bear in mind the OP did state that he hadn't yet asked a geologist. Fancy spending all that time on writing a paper (was it?) without checking with someone who might know and save you all that time.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 10:24:49 AM PDT
w: Too much wine and good times and far too much talk about politics, I guess.

A side effect of the scientific method, w?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 12:12:10 PM PDT
barbW says:
Hi Philip,
To me they're side effects, to others they're the main 'effect'.

Sad but true, and I know that you know that I know that you know.

Last night, my violinist and I played from 430 to 1030 pm with a break for chicken parmigiana. We got to be the center of attention, the good kind of attention.

<we couldn't have done it without Mozart, the rascal>

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 1:08:16 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
I don't mean to rain on his parade. Without knowing how old he might be or if he is a professional scientist, the best I can do is try to state what I have learned. I did get the idea he was not a professionally employed scientist because a scientist would have checked with geologists and gotten the confirmation of any theory they seek before ever going to a forum.

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 4:22:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2012 8:42:29 PM PDT
I emailed the best 15 earthquake scientists I could find, but admittedly most are probably too specialized to look into my very general research. Two have replied - one is on leave from work, the other (from the USGS) said:

I've wondered the same thing. Some geologists have argued that there is a slightly increased chance of earthquakes near full or new moons when gravitational exertions are at their greatest. Others do not think there is enough significance to matter, since it is impossible to apply to earthquake predictions for specific places or dates. In my own opinion, I think it's interesting.

I also wrote to three "ask a geologist" services, am awaiting their opinion.

I am a professional researcher, and once upon a time I worked as a researcher for Google. I know my numbers are good, and I couldn't find anything online that suggests any real scientists had made the same discovery - although several other amateurs have, and some Chinese scientists have connected earthquakes with tides (kinda the same thing).

I couldn't find a good dedicated forum for discussing earthquakes. I only posted here because it was at the bottom of my book page at Amazon, and mistakenly thought it was for specifically discussing my book - I'm surprised at how many intelligent folk hang out here.

BTW, the earthquake/eclipse connection was made by Aristotle, and was mentioned in the Bible twice:
http://survive2012.com/news/2012/06/ancient-eclipse-earthquake-connections-3253.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 8:51:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 8, 2012 8:57:50 PM PDT
Yog-Sothoth says:
RDS: "Yet still the calendar ends in December. Either the date was randomly plucked from somewhere, or it was meaningful to the Maya."

The 12/21/2012 date is SOLELY based upon the completion of the "13th b'ak'tun" (1,872,000 days) which, in turn, is based SOLELY on the "date of creation" which they claimed to be August 11, 3114, BCE. NOTHING really apocalyptic occured during the "turnovers" of the previous 12 b'ak'tuns (about every 394 years) so the ending of one is evidently not anything to be concerned with. Absolutely no different than turning your calendar over next January from 2012 to 2013 - or even peeling off today's "Dilbert" page to tomorrow's, for that matter.

Unfortunately for the doomsayers, the calendar continues on with the 14th b'ak'tun...all the way up to the 20th (which ends Oct. 14, 4772, 2,760 years in the future). Guess what happens then...? It all starts over, with the 1st b'ak'tun of the next p'ic'tun, for ANOTHER 20 b'ak'tun (7,885 years) and so on and so on...for about another 63 MILLION years... You state that you are a "professional researcher" so perhaps you hold "Wikipedia" in contemp; but at least there explanation of the Mayan Clendar is pretty accurate and simple to comprehend...

Anyway...the Maya were WRONG about the "date of creation", so any subsequent date, or "predictions", using that as a reference is WRONG, as well.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  107
Initial post:  Jun 1, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 16, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions