Starship Asterisk*

astrolabe wrote:where do they get them and why do they send them to me?

There is a galactic alignment underway, and the apocalyptists are sensationalizing it. It is supposedly slated for a particular time and date in 2012 (though the Mayans reportedly only specified the 36-year era 1980-2016). As the local consulting astronomer to many, I'm getting tired of the questions already. This link is where I send those who ask about the alignment:

http://alignment2012.com/whatisGA.htm

The alignment itself is astronomically interesting, and the link above has some good diagrams and succinct explanations. It presents the scientific facts well, though it doesn't come purely from the scientific camp as far as I can tell.

As the latest in a string of doomsday schedules (all prior ones having expired uneventfully), the 2012 alignment is presented in print and profusely on cable tv "science" channels in documentary format. Here are some problems I have with the presentation:

- The alignment is real enough, but there is no scientific reason it should result in cataclysm on Earth. Yet these "scientific documentaries" drum on cataclysm (everything from global warming to economic collapse) without evidence. They support it with astrology and Nostradamus.

- The alignment is a result of the precession of the Earth's equinoxes, not a result of a change in the tilt of the Earth's axis with respect to its solar orbit. Yet, through slippery phrasing, these "scientific documentaries" deliberately confuse a degree of precession with a degree of tilt to make potential disastrous climate changes part of their cataclysmic scenario.

- Climate changes (ice age cycles) resulting from periodic tilt changes and precession versus orbital major axis (which happen over tens of thousands of years) are real enough, as are the mass extinctions of 65 million and 250 million years ago. Yet, through slippery phrasing, these "scientific documentaries" deliberately confuse the two time scales to make the results of the tilt change (which isn't even directly involved in this alignment) sound more devastating.

- The alignment is with the galaxy's equator, not with the galaxy's center which currently lies 5.5 degrees south of the ecliptic, further down the galactic equator from where the ecliptic crosses. Yet, through slippery phrasing, these "scientific documentaries" deliberately confuse the two and try to make it sound more important by repeatedly referring to the "center".

- The point of the December solstice on the ecliptic will cross the galactic equator on a given time and date, but the date of the solstice and the date of the alignment are actually unrelated. Yet, through slippery phrasing, these "scientific documentaries" deliberately confuse the point of the solstice on the ecliptic (whether currently occupied by the sun or not) with the solstice itself (the sun at that point) to say the alignment will be on December 21. This date also brings "sunrise" into the alignment to attract the Stonehenge and Egyptology fans. It takes 36 years of precession along the ecliptic for the sun's entire disk to cross any point (including where it crosses the galactic equator) and an unknown time to traverse the "dark rift", so associating the Mayan calendar's original implication with any exact date seems unlikely.

So good luck to all you other local consulting astronomers as 2012 approaches.

apodman wrote:

astrolabe wrote:where do they get them and why do they send them to me?

There is a galactic alignment underway, and the apocalyptists are sensationalizing it. It is supposedly slated for a particular time and date in 2012 (though the Mayans reportedly only specified the 36-year era 1980-2016). As the local consulting astronomer to many, I'm getting tired of the questions already. This link is where I send those who ask about the alignment:

http://alignment2012.com/whatisGA.htm

That's one interpretation of "galactic alignment", but probably not the best. BTW, this site is clearly mistaken with regards to the this interpretation and the Mayans. There is no evidence that the Mayans knew anything about precession, or that their calendar was in any way based on the solstice sun crossing the galactic equator.

A more relevant type of "galactic alignment" concerns the position of our solar system with respect to the galactic equator. Our orbit around the center of the Milky Way takes us up and down across the galactic equator, with a ~35 million year period that possibly corresponds to past extinction events (including the K-T event 65 million years ago). Some dynamical simulations suggest that during the centuries when we are near the galactic equator, tidal effects disrupt the Oort cloud and we see an increase in comets thrown into the inner Solar System. I've seen the 2012 nuts suggest that the next crossing will happen in that year, although the exact position of the galactic equator can't even be defined, nor can our position with respect to it. But we are very near the galactic equator right now.

"Notice that the place of alignment is where the 'nuclear bulge' of the Galactic Center is located." I had to laugh at this statement. So long as the position of observation places the point of observation between the observer and the "nuclear bulge" That is where the alignment will appear. If the observation point moves as little as 2 deg to either side, the crossing will appear to happen elsewhere against the galactic background.

IMO it would only carry weight if ALL possible points of observation (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars...etc.) were also lined up at that same point in time.

Dear APODMAN: Pardon my ignorance, but I'm not scientist just curious.
So you said:

"Yet these "scientific documentaries" drum on cataclysm (everything from global warming to economic collapse) without evidence"

Global warming is a fact discussed by all governments and so is our collapsed economy, I think they have plenty of evidences don't you?
just curious.

Curious wrote:Global warming ... collapsed economy ... I think they have plenty of evidences don't you?

Of course there is evidence of global warming and economic problems, though "collapse" remains an overstatement as long as people can afford cigarettes and IPODs. No evidence is presented that any of this is caused by galactic alignment or described recognizably by Mayan prophesy.

apodman wrote:

Curious wrote:Global warming ... collapsed economy ... I think they have plenty of evidences don't you?

Of course there is evidence of global warming and economic problems, though "collapse" remains an overstatement as long as people can afford cigarettes and IPODs. No evidence is presented that any of this is caused by galactic alignment or described recognizably by Mayan prophesy.

Collapsed economy? Not in China, India, Russia (Europe I'm not sure about) .. so far not even in Canada where I am and where sales where up at Chrismas over last year, and where things are booming, three provinces can't get enough employees, Genral Motors in Ontario seems to be shutting down to enable workers to go to the gas and oil fields in the east and west. I hear things are bad in Florida, though, but the U.S. is not the world, even if it and/or Russia, China, India, Britain, France can end the world through dangerous politics .. like war over Iran's oil. And what of that comet in 2012? Maybe it is time to say, "It's been nice knowing you. Maya we seea each othera againa in a bettera placea."

YouTube: 2012: Movie Trailer

2012: NASA's Scientific Reality Check
Universe Today - November 11th, 2009

YouTube: 2012: Reality Check

Galactic alignments, Planetary alignments, nearby asteroids real and imagined – OH MY! Once upon a time when I was still taking science classes (decades have passed – seems like a geological time scale), I tried my hand at figuring the comparative strength of gravitational vectors by the various well known bodies in the solar system on a citzen of earth at average distances. If I remember correctly, I used as my base scale that 1G = 4000 miles, an earth radius. I forget the comparative size of the sun and moon vectors, which were the only ones that amounted to much but were still miniscule compared to the earth's. Many of the others came out to a matter of feet or fractions of inches. (Maybe I will try my hand at that again; the math isn’t so very difficult, even for a golden oldie like me). The point of course is that the idea that an “ALINEMENT” might cause earth shaking effects is – well, not laughable, such a strong reaction is not warranted – just enough to cause a smile at the fears of the easily lead. What is dangerous is that these false fears are taken seriously, while the slow creep of global warming, the steady increase of populations, depletion of soils, non renewable resources and so on have been, and continue in some quarters to be, ignored or denied.

So much for my hobby horse. Sorry to be preaching to the choir.

Well, the false fears are more fun to play with because none of them are our fault. We tend to want to forget the ones we're to blame for. I haven't seen anyone taking 2012 seriously, though. There's a movie that's going to bring in some serious dough for some people but other than that... people who believe in this stuff probably take their morning horoscope reading more seriously than some fabled Mayan prophecy. I guess if I'm wrong I'll just have more to laugh about in the coming news stories.

DonJones wrote:Galactic alignments, Planetary alignments, nearby asteroids real and imagined – OH MY! Once upon a time when I was still taking science classes (decades have passed – seems like a geological time scale), I tried my hand at figuring the comparative strength of gravitational vectors by the various well known bodies in the solar system on a citzen of earth at average distances.

The calculations are more interesting if you compute not the absolute gravity force vectors, but the tidal forces. At least with tides you have a mechanism by which they might affect our planet or Solar System (and in fact, they do- in some cases measurably, even though the forces are still far too small to produce anything detectable without sensitive instruments). For instance, it is plausible that as our Solar System crosses the galactic plane, the dynamics of the Oort cloud could be altered, resulting in a change of frequency for incoming comets. That could even be a recipe for disaster! It might help explain a periodicity in Earth impacts. Of course, we don't cross the galactic equator on any particular date, because there is no such thing as a physical galactic equator. There's just a broad zone that we spend tens of thousands of years crossing- we have been for a long time, and will continue to do so for a long time.

I'm certainly expecting to be around after 2012!

geckzilla wrote:I haven't seen anyone taking 2012 seriously, though.

What's "seriously"? I've been asked many times by people in the last few years if there are going to be disasters in 2012. I've talked to people who think that our satellites are going to be destroyed by solar flares, that the power grid will fail, that there will be earthquakes; basically, all sorts of nonsense. I wouldn't say these people (for the most part) believe this stuff "seriously" enough to be taking precautions, and most are willing to accept that it's not true once I talk with them a little, but non-scientific people are definitely reading these horror stories and wondering about their truth.

Hmm, I did arbitrarily decide that at the moment it's not at "serious" levels yet. I would consider it being taken seriously if it were at the same level as something like the Y2k bug. That was entirely blown out of proportion. You've met these people? I would expect the internet to have plenty of these nuts going around, whether part of a viral marketing campaign to go along with that movie or simply genuine nuts, but not widely reported by the media. At least, I haven't seen it reported even once on news.google.com which is my usual news aggregate.

geckzilla wrote:Hmm, I did arbitrarily decide that at the moment it's not at "serious" levels yet. I would consider it being taken seriously if it were at the same level as something like the Y2k bug. That was entirely blown out of proportion. You've met these people?

These are people I've met in person, and people I know. Up here in our rural bit of the mountains, everybody knows I'm the guy to ask about science and especially astronomy. So I hear the questions. (We also have more than a few "new age" types who are less than skeptical about much of what they hear or read.)

geckzilla wrote:... There's a movie that's going to bring in some serious dough for some people but other than that...

Yeah, I posted a link to the trailer. From what I've read, watch the trailer and save your money. The trailer is better than the movie, (happens too often, IMHO), but the public seems to like what the critics hate. Think I'll wait 'til it plays on TV.

Chris Peterson wrote:I'm certainly expecting to be around after 2012!

Yeah, me too! That's probably when they'll have the movie on TV, or just before.

Discovery News: Wide Angle: Doomsday in 2012?

The 2012 doomsday hype is spreading like wildfire, flames of myth and rumor fanned by pseudo-science and blockbuster movies. What is the real science behind "2012"? We ask the experts to get to the bottom of this growing phenomenon.

Discovery News: Wide Angle: Doomsday in 2012?

World Not Ending in 2012, Says NASA
Contrary to what you may read on the Internet, the world is not going to end in 2012. NASA says so.

Good. That settles it. We on Nibiru are also relieved and congratulate you on Earth.

geckzilla wrote:Well, the false fears are more fun to play with because none of them are our fault. We tend to want to forget the ones we're to blame for.

Hmm, That is an excellent point. Not only can one ignore real problems for which one also has some responsibility but one can also get very self righteous about the perceived irresponsibility of those who disagree. If you don’t believe me, take a look at my attitude in my last post. Oops.

Chris Peterson wrote: The calculations are more interesting if you compute not the absolute gravity force vectors, but the tidal forces. At least with tides you have a mechanism by which they might affect our planet or Solar System (and in fact, they do- in some cases measurably, even though the forces are still far too small to produce anything detectable without sensitive instruments). For instance, it is plausible that as our Solar System crosses the galactic plane, the dynamics of the Oort cloud could be altered, resulting in a change of frequency for incoming comets. That could even be a recipe for disaster! It might help explain a periodicity in Earth impacts.

My reason for doing the exercise in the first place was to see if there was a tidal link between the position of the moon/sun alignment and so-called effects of the full and new moons. Of course the earth has 8000 miles between the side nearest the moon and the side furthest from it. For an individual to feel any “tidal effects” one would have to calculate the tidal effects at a delta of six feet at a distance of a quarter of a million miles from the moon. Separate calculations for tidal effects are presently outside my knowledge base. I may have to Google the subject.

I suppose that even if there were measureable tidal effect over a range of six feet and if one were to stand outside in the evening of the full moon and found a peculiar feeling stealing over oneself, I would advise them to lay down – it will go away. They just have to realign their bodily orbit with the moon. (Oh man, that’s good. I crack me up).

OK - relative to crossing the galactic equator, (and somewhat more seriously) I have a couple of questions. Are the effects of crossing the galactic equator more a function of gravitational effects due to increased density of mass at the local region of crossing or is it a gravitational function relative to the central core area? I take it that the woo-woo crowd assumes the later but that seems unlikely unless we have a rather highly elliptical orbit, in which case, crossing the galactic equator might be a secondary effect. If the former, I can see why the process would only gradually or rarely produce interesting events (i.e., small gravitational effects on the Oort cloud over centuries or – rather sudden but rare perturbations of the cloud due to close passage of say, less than a light year, of a star system made less rare due to higher populations at the galactic equator).

DonJones wrote:My reason for doing the exercise in the first place was to see if there was a tidal link between the position of the moon/sun alignment and so-called effects of the full and new moons. Of course the earth has 8000 miles between the side nearest the moon and the side furthest from it. For an individual to feel any “tidal effects” one would have to calculate the tidal effects at a delta of six feet at a distance of a quarter of a million miles from the moon. Separate calculations for tidal effects are presently outside my knowledge base. I may have to Google the subject.

Well, the tidal forces a person feels from the Moon are much stronger than the direct gravitational field. Still undetectable to human senses, of course. (And in fact, there are no human effects from moon phases or alignments- those are anecdotal reports unsubstantiated by actual examination of the data.)

OK - relative to crossing the galactic equator, (and somewhat more seriously) I have a couple of questions. Are the effects of crossing the galactic equator more a function of gravitational effects due to increased density of mass at the local region of crossing or is it a gravitational function relative to the central core area?

I don't know which, although it probably wouldn't be too difficult to work out some estimates.

I take it that the woo-woo crowd assumes the later but that seems unlikely unless we have a rather highly elliptical orbit, in which case, crossing the galactic equator might be a secondary effect. If the former, I can see why the process would only gradually or rarely produce interesting events (i.e., small gravitational effects on the Oort cloud over centuries or – rather sudden but rare perturbations of the cloud due to close passage of say, less than a light year, of a star system made less rare due to higher populations at the galactic equator).

There are a few possibilities- both the crossing of the galactic plane by our solar system, and more significantly, the intersection of the galactic plane and/or galactic core with the ecliptic introduce tidal effects that might be significant. The interesting thing about the Oort cloud is how weakly bound these bodies are to the Sun. Their solar escape velocity is tiny, so very small perturbations are all that is required to send them towards the inner Solar System. If perturbations from the Milky Way are a factor, they are clearly only so in terms of effects over a very long time- hundreds of thousands or millions of years. And there is some evidence of periodicity in impacts on these kinds of scales. Certainly, we aren't going to suddenly be bombarded with comets, as some of the 2012 proponents would have us believe.

(Although I think effects from galactic tides are unlikely to affect us significantly, I recognize the possibility and am willing to discuss it in a forum like this. In a less scientific setting I wouldn't bring it up at all, since "remote possibility" could be easily interpreted as "likely", and "millions of years" could be taken as "2012" <g>.)

apodman wrote:Discovery News: Wide Angle: Doomsday in 2012?

World Not Ending in 2012, Says NASA
Contrary to what you may read on the Internet, the world is not going to end in 2012. NASA says so.

Good. That settles it. We on Nibiru are also relieved and congratulate you on Earth.

I even think that it calls for a poem of jubilation

The ort cloud is at such a distance out that, for us to be impaced on 12-21-2012, the imactors would need to be on their way now. They won't be traveling any faster than the New Horizons probe which is on its way to Pluto and beyond but wont even get to Pluto for 7 more years. The swarm would need to have been dislodged over 20 years ago to arrive here by 2012 and would likely be inside the orbit of Uranus and fast approaching Saturn's orbit. If their not there now, 2012 impacts would need to come from the asteroid belt or NEO's.

Good disaster movie ... bad science ... stupid predictions

BMAONE23 wrote:The ort cloud is at such a distance out that, for us to be impaced on 12-21-2012, the imactors would need to be on their way now. They won't be traveling any faster than the New Horizons probe which is on its way to Pluto and beyond but wont even get to Pluto for 7 more years. The swarm would need to have been dislodged over 20 years ago to arrive here by 2012 and would likely be inside the orbit of Uranus and fast approaching Saturn's orbit. If their not there now, 2012 impacts would need to come from the asteroid belt or NEO's.

Of course, since we've been crossing the galactic plane for centuries, a swarm could have been dislodged long ago (assuming, of course, that crossing the galactic plane can even have that effect- possible, but unlikely). Disaster movies aren't noted for paying much attention to what is possible! (I'm going to pass on this one- at least until they release a version with running commentary by Mike, Crow, and Tom Servo.)

2012 Mayan Calendar 'Doomsday' Date Might Be Wrong
Discovery Science News | 18 Oct 2010

According to all the ridiculous hype surrounding Dec. 21, 2012, the Mayans "predicted" the end of the world with one of their calendars. On this date, doomsayers assert that Earth will be ravaged by a smorgasbord of cataclysmic astronomical events -- everything from a Planet X flyby to a "killer" solar flare to a geomagnetic reversal, ensuring we have a very, very bad day. As we all know by now, these theories of doom are bunkum.

And now, according to a recent study by an associate professor at UC Santa Barbara, this fundamental "end date" may also be inaccurate. It could be at least 60 days out of whack.

Whew, I'm relieved, another two months.

bystander wrote:2012 Mayan Calendar 'Doomsday' Date Might Be Wrong
Discovery Science News | 18 Oct 2010

And now, according to a recent study by an associate professor at UC Santa Barbara,
this fundamental "end date" may also be inaccurate. It could be at least 60 days out of whack.

Whew, I'm relieved, another two months.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190080/goofs wrote:
<<Incorrectly regarded as a goof in the Movie 2012: It's explained that the events are happening way before schedule, so this was not taking place in December 2012, but earlier in the year (most likely the summer). Therefore the summer Olympics in London could indeed be happening at the time.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_%28film%29 wrote:

<<2012 is a 2009 adventure film directed by Roland Emmerich. It stars John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover and Woody Harrelson.

In 2009, Dr. Adrian Helmsley, an American geologist, visits astrophysicist Dr. Satnam Tsurutani in India and learns that neutrinos from a massive solar flare are causing the temperature of the Earth's core to increase rapidly. Adrian informs White House Chief of Staff Carl Anheuser and United States President Thomas Wilson that this will trigger a catastrophic chain of natural disasters.>>
......................................
Professor West: The Mayans saw this coming thousands of years ago.

Adrian Helmsley: I thought we had more time.
......................................
President Thomas Wilson: Six months ago, I was made aware of a situation so devastating that, at first, I refused to believe it. However, through the concerted efforts of our brightest scientist, we have confirmed its validity. The world, as we know it, will soon come to an end.

Carl Anheuser: Kind of galling when you realize that nutbags with cardboard signs had it right the whole time.
......................................
Charlie Frost: This marks the last day of the United States of America. And, by tomorrow, all of mankind. And we will be visible from the Milky Way as a tiny little puff of smoke. I'm watching the earth crumble before my eyes. The giant ash cloud created by this super-volcano will first envelop Vegas and then St. Louis and then Chicago and then, at long last, Washington, D.C. will have its lights go out!
......................................
Ark Communications Officer: The capital's been hit by a 9.4.

Ark Communications Officer: We've lost communication with the White House, sir.

Adrian Helmsley: Where's it centered?

Scotty: North Chesapeake Bay.
......................................
Carl Anheuser: You're telling me that the North Pole is now some where in Wisconsin?

Professor West: Actually, that's the South Pole now.

So the Earth's core is going to heat from being bombarded by neutrinos, so that the Earth will, I guess, explode?


We've been hit by a neutrino! More are coming!



Well... Let's hope there is a brave Jor-El among us Earthlings, a man who can build a small spaceship for his baby son and send the boy to the nearest "Earth" (that would probably be Zarmina's world), where the Last Son of Earth can develop superpowers thanks to Zarmina's lower gravity and the greater energy of its yellow sun!

Ah sh*t, it's the other way round! Zarmina's gravity is stronger and its red sun is weaker! Well, then... let's hope our Jor-El can send his son to Zarmina' World anyway, where the boy can live out his life in a wheelchair.

Ann