Talk:2012 Information & Talk:2012 Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
independentliving.com
 Health Care Retail Clinics Continue Gradual Expansion Through 2012 -...
Health Care Retail Clinics Continue Gradual Expansion Through 2012 -...
medicalcybrarian.com
 British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons :: Result of 2012...
British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons :: Result of 2012...
baoms.org.uk
 NI 2012 Plans from the CNIA - Canadian Nursing Informatics Association
NI 2012 Plans from the CNIA - Canadian Nursing Informatics Association
cnia.ca
 
The article 2012 has been mentioned by a media organization:
"The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html. 

Archives
2012 Talk: Archive 1
2012 Talk: Archive 2

Contents

[edit] A STRONGER ANTI-HYSTERIA STATEMENT

I believe it would be wise to adjust the opening paragraph to add the line, "There is currently no scientific evidence that any apocalyptic events will occur in 2012". The current statement leaves it open to doubt, and being as this page is one of the top results in a Google search for 2012 I think it would be irresponsible to allow the opportunity to educate some of our less-knowledgeable and less-patient readers to go unutilized. -74.76.55.235 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Solar Max

In 2012 is a solar maximum or solar max. During solar max sunspots appear. sunspotsare associated with solar flares and coronal mass ejection. which can disrupt radio communications, cause blackout or even worst, can lead to the demise of the ozone layer or even death from raditaion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.43.33 (talkcontribs) 00:42, August 26, 2008

[edit] Copyright

"March 22 – Unless the European Council votes to extend current copyright law, The Beatles' debut album, Please Please Me, will fall out of copyright." Are we sure of this? My understanding is that at present copyright is good for the life of the composer or, in the case of a group, the last surviving composer plus 75 years. How could Please Please Me fall into Public Domain? Was the copyright sold to someone and thus we have a different time limit? Gingermint (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See Uk copyright law#Sound recordings. However, the portion you have cited is still false as a) it only applies to the UK and b) the Beatles' album Please Please Me was not released until March 1963. We have an off-by-one error here. The BBC article used as reference refers to the Beatles' first single, Love me do which was released in late 1962. --Kulmala (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2012 predictions

The most advanced models presented at the 2007 meeting of the American Geophysical Union anticipated an ice-free Arctic in the summer as early as 2013 or even 2012 ??? = where will all of the melted ice go to ? = flooding ?? = new seaways open allowing access to North pole for countries to explore and to rape for minerals could cause a war ? Two large dams to be removed in 2012 in Upper USA = ? severe flooding ??

Unusual prediction from ytmnd user GaryGnu in site titled ripfidelcastro that Fidel Castro will die in 2012. (can't put the link in due to ytmnd's blacklist status.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroderzone (talkcontribs) 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] View Source

LOL pseudoscience. I see all this troofing has led to enough vandalism to cause the 2012 article to be semi-protected. First of all: there is no Planet X. Second of all, Earth Changes relies in part on obsolete geology, which has been surpassed by the more accurate plate tectonics theory. How would Atlantis or Mu rise "again" if they were never there to begin with, and is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge really eruptive enough to create an "Atlantis"? (Well, it built Iceland, but that was hot spot volcanism, and I don't know of any other hot spots under the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.) As for Mu, there is an oceanic ridge at the boundaries of the Nazca Plate and Pacific Plate, but it's not likely to produce land. No land means no real displacement of water; no real displacement of water means no sea level rises swamping existing land. Finally, the idea of a rapid pole shift is also bunk. The Earth has a lot of inertia; how is it supposed to tilt without something big hitting it or affecting it somehow? Since there's apparently no planet X or anything similar in size, we might as well conclude the Earth will stay on roughly the same axis it has in the past. Now that this troofy stuff has been disproven, let's get on with the events that may realistically happen in 2012, and not worry about the troofy stuff. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Some people who refer to "pole shift" may actually mean to be referring to "geomagnetic reversal". But no matter ... there is, obviously, no reason for anything to happen on the winter solstice of 2012. Of course, the sunrise will be sort of (roughly) close to the intersection of the galactic and the ecliptic planes (wherever that is), but, like, so what? I think the interesting question is whether or not the ancient Mayans even knew about the precession of the equinoxes. The answer to that question has not been determined (yet), but I believe it is highly unlikely that they did not know about the precession. It's hard to believe that they did not know. That is the interesting question. But trust me, my scared children ... the world's not gonna end until the sun puffs up into a red giant, and that's gonna be a long while. Worldrimroamer (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2012. The targets agreed during the Kyoto Conference for Climate Change should be met by 2012

The objective of the Kyoto climate-change conference was to establish a legally binding international agreement, whereby, all the participating nations commit themselves to tackling the issue of global warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The target agreed upon at the summit was an average reduction of 5.20n 1990 levels by the year 2012.

The article currently states that the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. This is not correct. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol spans from 2008 to 2012, and ends 31 December 2012. But the Protocol will continue until otherwise decided. The current negotiations on a new international climate regime is considering establishing a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which will begin 1 January 2013.

[edit] 7,000,000,000

The world population is estimated to reach 7 billion people in July 2012. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popwnote.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdsharett (talkcontribs) 03:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Major religious holidays - cross quarters and solstices

All of the holidays listed as cross quarters and solstices are for the Northern hemisphere only - Southern hemisphere would be six months out (so where 20 June is the northern Summer Solstice, it's the southern Winter Solstice, northern Halloween equates to southern Beltane, and so on). Could someone who can edit this page update this? - even if just to add "in the Northern hemisphere" to the existing info...? Ktp3 (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] World won't end on 12/21/2012 (only Mayans say) in real life but 5 billion years it will... (ours say)

Sorry for being off-topic.

Hmm... Year 2012...

According to "Book of Relevations", Christian Bible says that the Earth will end and be desolate for 1000 years and become a New Earth and Eternity.

There will be Pole Shift and Polar Reversal in 2012. Despite disaster, it will be a perfect alignment, however the Pole Shift/Polar Reversal will either be very short or a little longer... 2nd Coming Of Christ will be here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.32.110 (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Mayan elder priest, the world won't end on December 21, 2012, yet it'll be transformed instead, so the world will be saved.

Myth: Mayans predicted that world will end on 12/21/2012 only in 'fiction'

Fact: For 5 billion years (5000000000 A.D.) "Mayan year 12500000.0.0.0.0" in the future, it will end in real life as scientists predicted as we expect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.32.110 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that here. Please note that article talk pages are not forums. There is a fair list of places where comments such as this would be welcome at WP:OUTLET. Intelligentsium 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WHY?!?!?!?!?

Why are we even disscusing this?Why are people falling for yet another doomsday theary?Just like Y2K this is fake!It's just something to scare people into buying useless movies and "2012 protection kits."This kind of thing is dangerous, it causes mass hysteria,doomsday cults,and general stupididity,which brings more fear.And do we realy need to warn people about something that will NEVER happen?All it does is scare people.arn't thare enough problems in this world with out a fake doomsday theary????I'm 12 years old and I get it why can't every one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickmnmn (talkcontribs) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to you. You're more astute at age 12 than many much older. My only question is this: Is there some way that someoneone (e.g., moi) can officially nominate a Wikipedia discussion page (e.g., this one) as the most ridiculous waste of time in the whole Wikisphere? Worldrimroamer (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the Wikiserver posted my comment twice. I've deleted the repetition. Sorry for any confusion. Worldrimroamer (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I propose making some changes to "Dec. 21", if I may.

Under the heading December: December 21, the following things are said which need to be corrected. I will correct them unless someone can tell me why it shouldn't be done. The current text says:

(1) On this day the Long Count date at creation—written 13.0.0.0.0 in modern notation, equivalent to August 11, 3114 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar

The Gregorian-calendar creation date given above is (generally) agreed to be correct. However, the creation date in the long-count Mayan calendar is 0.0.0.0.0, not 13.0.0.0.0. The long-count date 13.0.0.0.0 is agreed by most scholars to correspond to the Gregorian date December 21, 2012, although some calculate it to be December 23, 2012. But that's not my point -- the problem is that the creation date is 0.0.0.0.0, not 13.0.0.0.0. I would assume that this is just a typo on the part of the author. Also, I don't understand what "in modern notation" is supposed to mean. The number as stated is simply a translation of the Mayan base-20 numbers into base 10.

(2) —is repeated for the first time in a span of a little over 5,125 solar years.[8]

I have no idea where this number comes from. One b'ak'tun is 144,000 days, which is 394.25 tropical (or solar) years. The length of time it takes the earth to complete one precession on its axis is, based on the present rate of precession (it varies slightly with time) is about 25,765 years. I cannot even tell what it is that the author is referring to as that which is being "repeated". But anyhow, I cannot find anything that repeats in 5125 years. This needs to be clarified.

(3) The completion of this cycle and the repetition of the previous Creation's Long Count ending date have been central to the 2012 phenomenon.

What "cycle"?

(4) Academic researchers have not concluded that the ancient Maya themselves attached similar significance to this point in time.[9]

It's correct that they have not concluded this. But some academic researchers have strongly suspected it, which is a valid point to be made (and documented, of course). What has not been pointed out in this article but should be (and I can document this from multiple sources) is that it is generally thought by scholars that the Mayan "end date" in the long-count calendar is what they chose first, and then they stepped back, as it were, thirteen b'ak'tuns to arrive at the creation date, 0.0.0.0.0. This is one of the strongest arguments for the assertion made by some (which I personally believe to be correct, but I will not insert my opinions into a Wikipedia article) that the Maya knew about the precession of the earth's axis (precession of the equinoxes), and that they were aware of the existence of a "winter solstice" (another unproven, but very likely true, assertion) and that they recognized that the winter solstice of 2012 was the first time in almost 26,000 years that the winter-solstice sunrise would occur somewhere near the intersection of the galactic and the ecliptic planes. No one can, today, define that "intersection point in space" exactly, and even if it were identifiable exactly, the Maya would not have been able to predict the time of its occurrence exactly. I calculate, using standard statistical methods and assumptions, and based on an estimation of their astronomical observatories' minimal accuracies, that they probably could have determined the date of the intersection of the winter-solstice sunrise and the intersection of the galactic and ecliptic planes to within a few weeks. So why did they choose precisely December 21 as the end of the calendar? I suspect that it is just because it was (is) the winter solstice which occurred nearest the intersection of the galactic and ecliptic planes. HOWEVER --

HOWEVER: PLEASE NOTE THIS: I will NOT insert personal calculations and assumptions into a Wikipedia article. I belabor the above points about intersection of planes only because I know there are some that are interested in the topic. There has been so much written on this topic, maybe there is some other place in Wikisphere where it would be appropriate. Maybe it's already there. I dunno. Don't have the time ... But I'm just saying that any modification I make to the article will be strictly factual. Worldrimroamer (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Worldrimroamer. In response to your questions (which I've numbered 1-4 above for clarity):
  • (1) The precolumbian Maya always wrote (in Long Count [LC] notation) this mythical creation date as 13.0.0.0.0 and never as 0.0.0.0.0. Or to be more precise, all extant Maya LC inscriptions that mention this date write it with a 13 in the b'ak'tun-place (13.0.0.0.0), there are none with a zero in that place (0.0.0.0.0). I am ignoring those couple of inscriptions (eg at Coba) where the date is written with even higher-order LC places, in these inscriptions all the higher-order places are set at 13 as well (incl. of course the b'ak'tun). Mathematically the date might function as if it should be all zeroes, but it seems never to have been written that way. Thus it's not a typo, instead it intentionally reflects the Maya (and modern scholarship) practice of how it was written. In this sense it would be incorrect to write it as 0.0.0.0.0. Also, "in modern notation" refers to nothing more than the contemporary practice of how Maya scholars write (for convenience really) Long Count dates, ie using arabic numerals with decimal points as the separators between 'cycles' of each successive magnitude. It doesn't have anything to do with converting Maya base-20 numbers into base-10.
  • (2) The approx 5125 solar years number refers to the amount of time it takes for configuration of the LC date component at mythical creation (13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 K'umku to write it in full together with the corresponding calendar round date too) to repeat itself, ie how long it takes for thirteen b'ak'tuns to complete and so the LC date once again becomes 13.0.0.0.0 (see the first table here, that might make it easier to visualise). This second date is the 21 December 2012 date, when we again have a LC date of 13.0.0.0.0 (except that this time the calendar round will be 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in). In other words, the span between the creation date (11 August 3114 BCE) and the pseudo- enddate (21 December 2012 CE, when the LC again reads 13.0.0.0.0) is a little over 5125 years. It has nothing to do with the precession in the earth's axis (or anything else astronomical, so far as most Mayanist scholars hold. It's purely a calendrical 'anniversary').
  • (3) "Cycle" here refers to the b'ak'tun-cycle, one cycle (eg from 9.0.0.0.0 to 10.0.0.0.0) taking 144,000 days, or 394.25 years, and the thirteen such cycles it takes for the LC creation date to be repeated is 13x 144000 days or 5125.25 years. IMO the text makes it clear enough.
  • (4) This article (2012 article) is not the place to go into any detail about what any minority/competing/alternative interpretations may be. We have other articles like Mesoamerican Long Count calendar and Maya calendar for any scholarly alternative interpretations, and in particular the article 2012 phenomenon for the more esoteric and speculative popular discussions about what significance the 2012 date has, wrt millenarianism and the Maya calendar/Long Count. Those are better places to add any alternative ideas, but they'll need to comply with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR policies. Suggest proposing any alterations you might wish at the talk pg(s) of those relevant articles first, like you've done here. But the scope of this present article intentionally does not go into any of that detail. IMO the current statement here is sufficient and matter-of-fact accurate desc of what this Dec 2012 date corresponds to in the maya/LC calendar, that's all that's needed here. I don't think any adjustment is needed in this one. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)



Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots