|
2012
Mar 16, 2010 13:04:48 GMT -6
Post by Mrs. Darth Vader on Mar 16, 2010 13:04:48 GMT -6
I finally saw the movie called 2012. It was supposed to be based on the Mayan prediction of the end of the world. It seemed more of a Noah's Ark take II. It also had elements of the "Titanic". In this movie it is the rich and the "important" people who get on the boats. Only a few workmen on location get to get on the boats. I did not like the fact that the movie did not stick to the Mayan prophesy because I would have liked to see if there were any differences between our traditional Christian view and theirs. If anyone knows what is written in the original Mayan 2012 December 21 please state it. I am curious.
I did like the symbolism of the ground suddenly going out from under your feet and the cover up of "all is well". This is true of today because the economy is not as back to normal as they are saying and one can easily see where the ground can suddenly disappear from under our economic feet.
Anybody else have an opinion on this movie? Please feel free to join in.
|
|
|
2012
Mar 17, 2010 9:19:09 GMT -6
Post by Darth Frigus on Mar 17, 2010 9:19:09 GMT -6
I've seen the movie some time ago and I'm not satisfied with it...not with the movie itself.But the prophecy about 2012 intrigued me a lot, so I searched up and down the net to find other info. I bumped into a documentary movie which says that on 21 December 2012, the sun aligns perfectly with the center of the Milky Way, as seen from Earth.According to them, it signifies the beginning of the cycle of extinction that occurred in the past already. Now, how exactly it will happen, we can just speculate.Some say that there is a phantom planet(mostly labeled as "planet X" or "Nibiru")which revolves around the sun in a huge eliptical orbit(like comets).It mostly moves in deep space, but it returns and passes very close to Earth.And since they speculate it to be a gas giant more massive than Jupiter(it would need such a mass to resist the Sun's gravity that much)so if it passed close, it would change the Earth's orbit(the "slingshot" effect). But one more likely scenario is that we will destroy ourselves.From what I see, this crisis with Kosovo could start a World War III(situation is very similiar to the way WWI started)...and nuclear weapons will definitely be used and we can all predict the consequences.As Einstein said, "I don't know with which weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
This 2012 won't be the end of the world entirely but the world as we know it.We will most likely descend back to tribal life on a half-dead planet.But anyway, life on Earth is bound to end when the Sun uses up it's reserves of helium and becomes a red giant.No escape from that unless we find a way to colonize new worlds or move the Earth farther from the Sun.Even if we expand to other star systems or move the Earth - other stars will die in time.The universe is constantly expanding, galaxies moving away from each other.In the end, universe will be an enormous, empty void.
|
|
|
2012
Mar 17, 2010 23:18:48 GMT -6
Post by Mrs. Darth Vader on Mar 17, 2010 23:18:48 GMT -6
Darth Frigus Thank you for explaining the 201 Mayan end of the world thing. I do not think that planet "X" is bigger than Jupitor. Pluto orbits an elliptical orbit so much that it crosses into Neptune's orbit at certain points. Your analysis is chillingly dead on as to WWIII because the Balkans is where WWI started and there are many similarities today that compare to WWI. We are on the same page here. I too am familiar with the Einstein quote and believe it. You are right concerning the death of our sun. I have the "Cosmos" series by Carl Sagan and he explains just that. And you believe that our universe will continue to expand until it becomes just elementary particles. Many physicists believe that as well it is a good working theory as it's sister theory which is that the universe will expand until it does a switch and begins to collapse in on itself causing what is now called "The Big Crunch" as stated by Stephen Hawking. Episode9 of the "Cosmos" Series deals with the lives and deaths of stars. In this segment is included the part of when our sun is destined to die. www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T65cgwVQ_cHere is Episode 9 part one called The Lives of the Stars. Once you get to the first one you can view the whole Episode. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbIuTRK_Ol8Here is Episode 10 called the "Edge of Forever" Part 1 so you can view the whole episode. This one deals with the two choices between an ever expanding universe to one that collapses in on itself. Hawking's Universe also talks about the Big Crunch.
|
|
|
2012
Mar 18, 2010 0:43:04 GMT -6
Post by Darth Frigus on Mar 18, 2010 0:43:04 GMT -6
Well, Pluto was Neptunes moon and it escaped it's gravity, but couldn't escape sun's.But if Nibiru goes so close to the star and then into deep space, it means it must have a large mass to resist when it's close.If an Earth sized planet would be sent from space to make a close circle around the sun - it would remain in orbit, it's mass is too small to resist the sun's gravity.So if this planet revolves in such an orbit, it's mass must be near sun's, and there is no such rocky planet.It must be a gas giant that's in the pre-star stage of life.Or a brown dwarf...it just came into my mind while writing this.Brown dwarves are cores of dead stars.They don't shine, they are small like asteroids but their gravity is no smaller than when they were a star and they are extremely magnetized.A lot of them, unseen, floats through the universe.I think this is the most likely scenario for Nibiru.
I read "The Universe at Midnight" by Ken Croswell.A constant labeled omega signifies the balance of gravity and dark energy in the Universe.If it is exactly 1, the universe is in perfect balance and will not grow("Euclid's Paradise"), if it is above 1 it means there is more mass than dark energy and universe will collapse in time.But in our situation, where omega is around 0.4, there is much more dark energy than gravity and the end will not be fiery - but freezing.
|
|
|
2012
Mar 18, 2010 15:19:56 GMT -6
Post by Mrs. Darth Vader on Mar 18, 2010 15:19:56 GMT -6
Stephen Hawking believes that there is enough matter and gravity in the universe to eventually get to "Big Crunch" stage another theory proposed in "Universe In A Nutshell" also by Stephen Hawking suggests that our universe is trapped in a basic sphere or pear shaped form but wrapped around our universe is the gravitons in a 5th physical dimension. This is based on the String Theory where they believe that the reason that gravity is weaker than the other forces, Electromagnetism, Strong Force and the Weak Force is because most of the gravitons are outside of our Time-Space Continuum.
As to Pluto, it is a planet. The ninth planet of our solar system. When only 6% of the scientists of IAU vote after everyone left to change Pluto's status I am skeptical about their decision. It was up to those who do not believe Pluto to be a planet to prove their case since it has been a planet since 1930. It is a known fact that they voted the change to express their disagreement with the Bush administration. Dr. Alan Stern still believes Pluto to be a planet. Nasa is putting their money where their mouth is because Nasa has sent a probe to reach Pluto by 2015. They would not spend money on a bunch of asteroids. America is a cheap skate nation when it comes to funding research so if we are spending money we believe it is important. Lastly the IAU says that a planet has to clean up it's orbit of all debris, asteroids and so on. This is in their definition in order to kick out Pluto. But Jupiter has also not cleaned out it's orbit so do we kick out Jupiter as well? And what about the fact that the moon that orbits the earth is gradually leaving the earth's orbit. It seems that the earth can not keep her own satellite while little Pluto is holding her own with Charon. Does that mean the Earth is no longer a planet. I also do not like the unscientific approach the IAU took to kick out Pluto. If the IAU does not wish to have history repeat itself than they should re-think their position on Pluto. Scientists should never be known to make choices based on political prejudices or rash emotional decisions. Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto and got the Nobel Prize for it. Do we now trash the value of the Nobel Prize? I did notice the only planet in question is the only planet discovered by an American. If Europe wished to show disapproval for American Foreign policy than there is more productive ways to do it like directly taking America to the mat for our bad policies not attacking a man who is dead and can not defend his discovery. I stand by Pluto.
|
|
|
2012
Mar 19, 2010 23:08:35 GMT -6
Post by Mrs. Darth Vader on Mar 19, 2010 23:08:35 GMT -6
Just a quick note. Here is the link to just the part where Sagan talks about the choices between an oscillating universe and one that just continues to expand to become elementary particles. www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcrupJLbz78&feature=relatedThis is a short cut.
|
|
|
2012
Mar 20, 2010 8:22:09 GMT -6
Post by Darth Frigus on Mar 20, 2010 8:22:09 GMT -6
Well, since all the visible galaxies display a large blue shift, except Andromeda, I'd say we're not even close to a Big Crunch... I am not saying anything against Pluto's status as a planet, I am actually against its demotion.I just said it WAS Neptune's moon, but it now revolves around the Sun and I believe it's enough to make it a planet. This one always gives me a laugh.
|
|
|
2012
Mar 20, 2010 12:50:31 GMT -6
Post by Mrs. Darth Vader on Mar 20, 2010 12:50:31 GMT -6
Darth Frigus Thanks for the funny Pluto cartoon. It made me laugh as well. You are correct, we are not even close to a Big Crunch but the Crunch is not expected to happen for tens of billions of years so it is a long time coming. We certainly will not see it. As is the theory of everything becoming just elementary particles. Both cosmologies are far away in time scales. I looked on line and there were no more funny jokes on Pluto. You found the best in the lot. I can only give you the runner up. The others were not funny at all. At least this one got me to chuckle.
|
|