If they just send some crazy advanced ship they got in the hiding right now, they'll be there before they invent and build a way to travel faster than light...
Printable View
If they just send some crazy advanced ship they got in the hiding right now, they'll be there before they invent and build a way to travel faster than light...
Ok, sorry Mr.Perfect. I guess from now on, I should refer people from Boston as Bostons now right? There are plenty of scientists and historians that refer to them as the Mayans, so there's no need for nitpicking that issue. You are acting as if the theory of relativity is permanent. Theories change with each breakthrough in science. It is exactly that. A theory. It is not a law (which even that changes), nor is it definite. What is accepted now, will be obsolete in the future. So therefore, it is not impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by troublemaker1111
I also never said leap years were just put into effect for fun. I specifically said...
I would think someone who has an IQ over 70 would know that means to "keep track of something". Considering we know a leap year happens every 4 years, wouldn't it be obvious leap years are associated with keeping track of years? Or did I really have to specifically say that, so people like you wouldn't nitpick it for something that it wasn't? A leap year is accepted now, but it does not mean that you have to keep track of time/years with it. The word year can't even be associated with keeping track of time because a "year" as we know it, pertains to our time frame. A year in common time is not the same as say... Ancient Chinese years. Before calenders existed, do you think Neanderthals knew how long a leap year/normal year was? No, they kept track of time through other means, which is quite possibly how the Mayans did.Quote:
Originally Posted by bboy242
Tell me... how long have we been recording solar flares? Considering it hasn't been more than 100 or so years, how can you say they are too random? Because they've been random recently? That does not mean they have always been random. I've noticed you like to take present situations and assume they apply for all of time.
As I've said before, the MAYANS may not have predicted the end of the world, but considering their calender ends at a specified time, they predicted something. What that is, we will find out on that date. Do you see an "end" to any modern day calenders? And no, I don't mean them ending at the end of the year so please don't say that.
Do you have ANY primary evidence that the Maya did not believe the end of the Long Count coincided with any particular astrological event? No? Then stop acting like everything has to fit present standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by troublemaker
No there aren't. 'Mayan' refers to the languages of the 'Maya' civilisation. I don't know why you're making this claim when you obviously haven't read a damn thing about the Maya in the first place other than maybe a few doomsday websites. Why do you insist on dragging these things on even when you know you are wrong? It's ok, nobody cares you got the terminology a little mixed up, just see it as learning a new thing you can impress all your friends with. If you want to be stubborn and continue getting it wrong, you're just going to make yourself look stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by bboy242
This is just terrible logic.Quote:
You are acting as if the theory of relativity are permanent. Theories change with each breakthrough in science. It is exactly that. A theory. It is not a law (which even that changes), nor is it definite. What is accepted now, will be obsolete in the future. So therefore, it is not impossible.
There you go again. There's nothing "quite possible" about it. We know how the Maya kept time. Just because you don't know, it doesn't mean we don't. We know how the Long Count works. We know how their other calenders worked. They are only accurate with relation to themselves. The fact is you cannot have an infinitely repeating calendar that will stay in tune with the seasons or the movements of the heavens. The Maya calendars alone can not accurately predict solar events or any other astronomical event.Quote:
I also never said leap years were just put into effect for fun. I specifically said...
I would think someone who has an IQ over 70 would know that means to "keep track of something". Considering we know a leap year happens every 4 years, wouldn't it be obvious leap years are associated with keeping track of years? Or did I really have to specifically say that, so people like you wouldn't nitpick it for something that it wasn't? A leap year is accepted now, but it does not mean that you have to keep track of time/years with it. The word year can't even be associated with keeping track of time because a "year" as we know it, pertains to our time frame. A year in common time is not the same as say... Ancient Chinese years. Before calenders existed, do you think Neanderthals knew how long a leap year/normal year was? No, they kept track of time through other means, which is quite possibly how the Mayans did.
As for the long count, it is just a count of days. It doesn't even claim to predict anything. It was created as a way of referring to dates further into the future and past than the other contemporary calendars allowed. Today, we can simply refer to a specific year, for example 2341 AD or 3000 BC. The Maya didn't have a system for this, and so they created the Long Count as their way of referring to distant dates. It was never intended to predict anything. Calendars don't predict things.
From wikipedia:Quote:
Tell me... how long have we been recording solar flares? Considering it hasn't been more than 100 or so years, how can you say they are too random? Because they've been random recently? That does not mean they have always been random. I've noticed you like to take present situations and assume they apply for all of time.
"The frequency of occurrence of solar flares varies, from several per day when the Sun is particularly "active" to less than one each week when the Sun is "quiet"."
Pretty self explanatory. And it's safe to say that this has been the case for a very, very long time. A few thousand years is nothing in the development of a star. But that doesn't matter, because there is nothing to suggest that the Maya even knew about solar flares anyway.
Again, the long count calendar is a count of days, nothing more. It had to end at some point, December 2012 just happens to be that date. There is no evidence that any kind of prophecy was ever attached to it. And comparing it to modern day calendars is just stupid, because it isn't a modern day calendar. I can't believe you think it's more likely that the Maya magically predicted some cataclysmic event thousands of years into the future than it is that they simply had a system of counting years that happens to end on a certain date in our lifetime. It's as meaningless as a horoscope.Quote:
As I've said before, the MAYANS may not have predicted the end of the world, but considering their calender ends at a specified time, they predicted something. What that is, we will find out on that date. Do you see an "end" to any modern day calenders? And no, I don't mean them ending at the end of the year so please don't say that.
And this is just pitiful. Do you have any idea what the burden of proof is? It lies with the person making the positive claims.Quote:
Do you have ANY primary evidence that the Maya did not believe the end of the Long Count coincided with any particular astrological event? No? Then stop acting like everything has to fit present standards.
Hint: that's you.
Listen, no offence but I obviously know a lot more about this than you do. I'm not even debating here, I'm teaching.
troublemaker, if you're going to be a spelling/name expert, how could you misspell civilization?
He is a typical troublemaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbox
I'm not trying to be mean about it, but if he's going to try to nitpick about the whole maya/mayan thing then he should at least try to spell his own words correctly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Neroez
Honestly, it doesn't matter which you choose to say.
Also, http://www.mayatraditions.com/Maya_vs_Mayan.html
Quote:
Which is correct: Maya or Mayan languages, Maya or Mayan art, Maya or Mayan writing and Mayas or Mayans to refer to people? Is there a difference in meaning in the two kinds of expressions? What are the rules for deciding which to use?
First of all, there has been no definitive decision on this matter, and, moreover, almost everyone admits to being inconsistent. In part, the variation in the competing adjectival and noun forms reflects the patterns adopted by two different sets of academic disciplines: archeology, art history and epigraphy (deciphering Mayan hieroglyphs), which grew out of the first two, vs. linguistics and some branches of anthropology. Until the realization in the late 1960s that hieroglyphic writing represented real language, in general these two branches of study did not overlap and so the different patterns each adopted—Maya for art historians and archeologists, Mayan for linguists—were not really in conflict.
Another factor in choosing between the two forms is the historical fact that from very early on, the Mayas in the Yucatán Peninsula had been called “Maya”. The various linguistic groups in Guatemala, Chiapas and Belize were mostly known by their individual language names, e.g., Tzeltals, Kaqchikels, Itzajs, Mopans, etc. And linguists referred to all the languages together as “Mayan languages”.
The corresponding Spanish term has always been simply maya for both noun and adjective. Because Spanish had no good equivalent for this adjectival form, an attempt was made by the well-known linguist Terrence Kaufman in the 1970s to introduce the term mayance to serve as an adjective, but the word never took hold.
Finally, an important factor in the choices some scholars make today is the political history of the past 40 years. The new sense of cultural identity beyond individual language or community groupings began to emerge at least by the late 1970s and gained force as the armed conflict began to recede in the early 1990s. This process has been given many names, among them the Maya Movement, the Pan-Maya Renaissance and Mayan Cultural Revitalization. As consciousness grew among Maya intellectuals, a general term for all the peoples who speak Mayan languages and observe Mayan cultural traditions and values was needed. Everyone agreed to use Maya to refer to all these groups of people. Foreign scholars began to acknowledge this modern identity by adopting the same name, while still using the adjective form “Mayan”. People began to avoid using “the Maya” because it is too generic, denying individuality.
Art historians, epigraphers and most archaeologists continue to prefer the invariant form Maya, both as noun and adjective. A growing group of academics and students, especially linguists, have begun to reach a consensus that goes something like this: Maya is a noun, referring to individual people, and can be both appositive and plural; Mayan is an adjective. Thus: The best student in my class is a Maya. Three Mayas ran for office. A good book on Mayan values is the one by the Maya intellectual Manuel Salazar Tetzahuic, the current Guatemalan Minister of Culture. Mayan textiles are an important source of information about Mayan culture because of the way Maya weavers include Mayan cosmology and symbolism in their work.
A nice clarification made possible by this modern usage is the distinction that can be made between Maya linguists, linguists who are Mayas and Mayan linguists, who are linguists investigating Mayan languages but who are not themselves Mayas.
In Spanish, the word Maya is often capitalized when referring to people and should be pluralized when there is more than one: Dos Mayas me visitaron en los Estados Unidos. As an adjective, the Spanish adjectival form maya continues to be the best choice, pluralized as appropriate to context: cultura maya, lenguas mayas.
Although there is not yet complete consistency across all disciplines, this modern usage gives Mayas the dignity of a non-generic form of reference for individuals (for example, Spaniards vs. the Spanish) and is the recommended pattern for most writing. (Unless, of course, you are writing for a professional archeological journal and need to follow its style sheet—Mayas aren’t the only people with a love for their traditions!)
Laura Martin, Ph.D., is professor of modern languages and director of the
K’inal Winik Cultural Center at Cleveland State University in Ohio.
Uh it's British spelling and perfectly correct, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbox
And every book I have ever read on the Maya uses the terminology that I use. You'll notice that even that website is called Maya Traditions. At any rate, according to that article bboy is still wrong for using 'Mayan' as a noun, which is what I was correcting him on.
1. Because we have this pesky little formula that goes something like E=mc^2. Quite literally, when a mass is moving at the speed of light, it is pure energy (that is, it's no longer mass). At that point all the data you'd want to preserve would be lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by bboy242
Moving faster than the speed of light isn't a goal. Many sci-fi shows call it "FTL" travel because your distance divided by destination time minus departure time is faster than the speed of light. This doesn't mean the vessel ever moves even close to the speed of light. The idea is to find another way to manipulate spacetime (or 11-space, whatever theory you want to embrace) in such a way that an object moves at a faster rate (observably) than the speed of light. See wormholes, warp technology, etc. And we already know some things do "move" faster than the speed of light -- particles exist in many cases in multiple points in our observable 3-space (or 4-space, depending on your perspective) at the same time. The theory of relativity was wrong, and still is wrong, and Einstein admitted this. He wasn't satisfied with it, but most people were as it so elegantly predicted celestial movements, but for anything smaller than an atom, it utterly completely fails.
Also, the Mayans weren't unlike us. They observed the locations of the stars and our sun and noticed the patterns (though they worshipped the sun, we just know it's a big ball of burning gas in the middle of our solar system, but perhaps we SHOULD worship it because it is one of the primary reasons we're here). As a result, their calendar systems were built on these observations. Our notion of a "year" follows the cycle of the solar system. Now it's defined as the length of time it takes for the Earth to complete a full orbit of the sun. Then, it was deduced by studying star charts and understanding that after an apparent 360ish days everything appeared to line up again. We have a cyclic form of time keeping as well: we call them years (just as the Mayans did). At the end of every year, we rejoice and celebrate the new year. At the end of every century we celebrate, at the end of every millenium as well. Why do you expect their system was any different? They were masters in logical deduction and observation, they weren't magical people who knew things we don't. That's just absurd.
Physics allowed it just fine. The entire point of trying to fly was because the observed notion of lift in physics. The idea was to try to copy birds but the flapping wing designs failed horribly early on until people realized that when air moves past a bow shaped wing that it produces lift, and so we got Wilbur & Orville making the first well working prototypes.Quote:
Originally Posted by bboy242
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WB_Wind_Tunnel.jpg
Theories don't change with each new breakthrough. A theory is postulated to explain a phenomenon. In pursuing testing that theory, we uncover lots of cool shit we didn't know before. If something is found (ala a breakthrough) which contradicts the theory, then we finally know the theory is incorrect and a new theory is postulated that fits this new breakthrough (Or the new breakthrough makes it clear what we didn't understand and so the next theory is far more accurate). We don't just change theories nilly-willy when a new breakthrough comes out, rather theories and the scientific method applied to try to reinforce them as accurate (though you can't really PROVE them) leads to new scientific discovery. In a sense, theories are the engine which drives all of science. This, however, does not mean that something which we believe is impossible today will not be impossible later. It means things we don't know enough about to make an estimate as to whether it's possible or not may be possible in the future, but by our theories some things we know to be impossible and SOME of those things may turn out, in fact, to be possible. We just don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by bboy242
As far as solar flares go, we don't predict them at all. We have signs of increased solar activity and observations of the initial phases of solar flares (which in themselves are irregular...), and so the observations of when a high risk time comes about, we know "oh shit, we might have some solar flares" and then a few weeks before they happen we might be able to predict just about where it might take place. We cannot, however, take a look at the sun today, observe it for a year or two, and make an accurate guess of what'll happen in 2000 years. We might be able to observe some cycles but nothing so regular that we can know EXACTLY what's going to happen that far in the future.
Take earth's weather as an example. It's arguably simpler than the sun. Yet we can't predict in great degree what's going to happen. We don't even know when a tornado is going to form more than a few hours before it does. But we know roughly what kind of weather we expect in each of the seasons, and at certain times of the year that particular types of storms or clouds form in certain areas that cause certain other types of precipitation or weather. Yes, because we CANNOT predict any of these things now, does not imply that we won't be able to do so in the future, but we're not saying that it's impossible. We're saying we don't have the necessary tools to measure with a high enough degree of certainty the variables with which we could derive an accurate prediction for a long period of time. That's all.
Leap years don't keep track of anything. They're used to correct the error in a 365 day calendar. The year is closer to 365.25 days, which means if we toss in an extra day every 4 years, we balance it out. It was added to previous calendar systems when it was noted that they became inaccurate after long periods of time (and when we could better measure exactly the length of a year).Quote:
Originally Posted by bboy242
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year[/ame]
There isn't any evidence of this. See above arguments for why this is an invalid line of reasoning. In worst case it's just the alignment of some celestial bodies, nothing disastrous or apocalyptic.Quote:
Originally Posted by bboy242
With similar reason we can say that because my calendar ends on Dec. 31 that the makers of the calendar knew some crazy big event was going to happen on that date and so they didn't bother adding more time to it. WOW, DEC31 = END OF THE WORLD.
Seems like we are always finding interesting planets.
Yet how did 2012 get into this? Because someone made a slight joke about it? 2012 is an scare like 2000.
Posted via Mobile Device
Nah, nothing outstanding. Once I saw a footage on Discovery channel about planets, and a physics said there are more planets in space than grains of sands in the beaches of the earth.
Greedy would be of us think there isn't any life out there waiting for us. That would be nice if there was a planet like the earth, so we could explore it and see new things. (:
Well if we get there what if they have those blue guys from avatar?
We have no chance against their bow and arrows
Wtf you havn't you seen star trek!!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Negata