Added: 5 years ago
From: tehminghan
Views: 142,511
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (295)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • im mirin

  • I guess if two giant black holes want to be on drugs, nothing can stand in their way.

  • Just to say, this happens because when the sucking bounds meet they create weird ripples in spacetime that mess the time up in that area. If you brought a computer there you'd notice it may change from 12:00 to 11:59. This is because the sucking area in it's bounds also messes time up itself. If 2 of those get mixed, the time control gets messed up so if a black hole to the past and one to the future meet, the middle is either past and future or the present but paused.

    P.S. This is my theory.

  • @hungarylnnjsd How much work and effort do you put into scamming people?

    Ever consider simply just working instead to make money?

  • @hungarylnnjsd Why scam? It's not nice. Just look at my good theory of why space ripples exist.

  • Ah, the big question about these is this...is it a rip in space-time? Is it a ball of infinite density? And yet, if it were, would it BE our universe, considering the fact that that says that it would eventually take in everything? Is it REALLY a hole?

  • @MusiruneProductions it's not a hole it's just a well of near infinite density, anyways think of it as a funnel but the end is closed. the farther the water is the less effect the funnel has, the closer the more. anyways it is a super dense ball of matter. if we lived inside one, we would be instantly crushed.

  • @lollipopbrigade Yes, that's basically what I've heard, just curious on the most current Idea, what with the imperfectness of the human race and all...thank-you, and well-put!

  • @MusiruneProductions Anytime, and those human characteristics are quite a pain to gain knowledge these days :P

  • why would they collide? Wouldn't the gravitational forces that brought them close to each other provide enough momentum for them to orbit each other for at least a VERY long time?

  • @seanbrockest they would still eventually collide

  • Yo What the fuck people... This is about blackholes and space... not about religions.

  • but i think the black wholes should be like same size. or els one could "eat" the other and so on

  • If you take a larg-er mass nearby then you can explain expansion. If the cosmos is infinite and the universe is finite as it is visible then why couldn't a larger or many larger universes nearby (cosmically speaking) exlain vacuum energy i.e. Vacuum energy i.e. Dark matter.

  • Vacuum energy and dark matter are not even remotely the same thing. I don't know what you mean by "cosmos," but taking it to mean "multiverse," the reason is that objects in another universe cannot interact with objects in our universe, by the very definition of "universe." However, there are objects in M-theory called branes that could possibly explain dark matter if there is some matter on nearby parallel 3-branes, but this seems very unlikely at this point.

  • "Science relies on faith just as much as religion"

    hahahahaha

  • "Science relies on faith just as much as religion"

    !!!

    what is x + 1 = 2

    hummmm I believe and have faith x = 5

    perhaps you add one to both sides then you add both ones together to get 2. Yeah then 2 + 2+1 = 5

    yeah

    I'm not ganna try to solve that, I have faith it's not possible !

    I'll just have to believe it's 5 !

  • black holes are not like vaccuums. they are more like magnets, anything within a certain range gets pulled in. if your not in its gravitational field, then you wont be affected.

  • Sweet!

  • Tell you what, get a education.

  • woah... u're really stupid

  • There are supermassive black holes in the middle of every galaxy.

  • Ever heard about Dark Matter and dark energy?

  • Those are theoretical compensations for empirical failure in proving the mainstream cosmological theory that includes the big bang, black holes and redshifts as (only) a measure of distance.

  • so....your criticizing people for believing in something that cant be seen?

    it seems you also believe in something that is conviniently invisible. how interesting indeed.

  • i don't agree with anyone, but helium is also invisable, but it still exists.

  • Helium also has a mass. It's also not invisible. The molecules are just spread out so you can't see him. It's possible to make liquid helium...

  • I'm coming into this halfway through i can see...but if you meant a belief in a god by "conveniently invisible" then I must point out a flaw in that comparison.

    A belief in a god would be based on faith, as is required for any religion, not empirical evidence. How interesting indeed that scientists seem to play the same game at times, offering "dark matter" and "dark energy" instead of empirical scientific reproducable data and acting as though it is proven thoery.

  • No good scientist has ever claimed that the existence of dark matter and dark energy is proven, they are simply a means to completing the physical model that attempts to explain the existence of all the matter in the universe.

    Science relies on faith just as much as religion, otherwise there would be no point in pursuing phenomena like black holes.

    :)

  • "Science relies on faith just as much as religion" Bullshit, Science relies on data and observation, which scientists then try to explain with their models.

  • You are correct. BUT: observation is merely what our brains interpret. Don't get me wrong, I believe in God as much as I believe in fairies and floating tea pots, but I would be wrong if I were to say that science is infallable. We place our faith in the observations we make and the data we collect that it is absolute and true. If we don't, we are just as arrogant as a Theist, convinced by the existence of God purely based on their holy teachings.

  • "observation is merely what our brains interpret." And faith is what? Wishful thinking!

    "We place our faith in the observations" I wouldn´t call that faith, since faith is loaded with religious believes, better would be assumptions that are then checked and ignored if it turns out they are wrong. BTW there are a LOT of observations that we don´t need assumptions about, like do stones fall on earth? And if you repeat an experiment with the same outcome that observation doesn't need "faith".

  • what part about

    'no scientist has ever claimed that dark energy/matter is proven'

    did you not understand?

    rly - it's a theory and you can work with it till it is proven or flawed, then you get a new theory.

    and right now, god is not proven since the first human being ever had the idea of an super hero called 'God' - may superman would've been a better name....

    god is an idea and nothing more. Just representing something in our selves called conscience

    and that's just the whole idea

  • I just said a belief in God is faith based. Of course, that means it's not proven as you repeated, ridiculing it in the process. Your subjective opinion on what God is...drum roll...is also based on faith.

    As is scientists belief in dark matter/energy.

    That was my point.

    To accept something that is not proven through empirical reproducable data is called "having faith."

    Perhaps we should call dark matter "superman"...

  • The difference between a religion (belief in god or what ever you may call it) and a scientific theory would probably be that a scientific theory acknowledges itself as being simply a hypothesis which can be modified or discarded as new knowledge is acquired on the subject . As opposed to religion which acknowledges itself as being the only truth which never changes or fluctuates. If you wish that I continue further, please, let me know. I would happily brief you on the matter.

  • I compared a belief in God to a belief in dark matter, not science and religion. Science and religion are indeed different and exactly in the way you said.

    But a belief in God and a belief in dark matter is very similar (at this point in time).

    There is no empirical evidence for either. One helps complete our current understanding of the universe. The other helps complete many people's understanding of reality.

  • No evidence for dark matter? Aside from galaxies spinning in ways that clearly violate Newtonian physics? We can see its gravitational footprint.

    Scientists didn't just make dark matter up for the hell of it. It was hypothesized to explain an observed phenomenon. And the dark matter particle, the WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) was already predicted by quantum mechanics anyway. It was the most obvious candidate.

    If you don't buy dark matter, by the way, you have to rewrite Newton.

  • There is a thing called empirical, reproducable scientific data. We have none as far as dark matter/energy goes.

    That's why it's called dark matter. If we knew what it was or could recreate it in a lab we would probably name it after the scientist who discovered it.

    You're exactly right, we see heavenly bodies breaking the laws of gravity, as there isn't enough mass to hold them in orbit. So we created a temporary substitute. What if the law is wrong though?

  • If dark matter is wrong, scientists go with whatever new explanation is more plausible.

    And if that involves rewriting Newton, then whoever did it becomes the new Newton.

  • You and I have agreed completely on the basis of dark matter, but you continue to reply to me with a negative attitude. I believe this is because I have taken the position that it takes "faith" to believe in dark matter.

    This bothers you, so you have continually repeated exactly what I've said, but in a way that sounds like you're contradicting me. Since I am stating the exact hypothesis and it can't be contradicted, we should be arguing on whether or not it takes faith to believe in it.

  • "If dark matter is wrong, scientists go with whatever new explanation is more plausible"

    This isn't necessarily correct either. Scientists refuse to accept a theory all the time, instead relying on instinct.

    Eintstein went to his grave trying to disprove QM. He never succeeded, but he never accepted it either. He "refused to believe God plays dice with the universe."

    Stephen Hawking had a major problem with current black hole theory until recently admitting it was probably correct.

  • "If you don't buy dark matter, by the way, you have to rewrite Newton"

    This is a perfect example of what I'm saying. If you don't have faith that dark matter exists then you must rewrite most of our physics, and not just Newton but Einstein as well (which I am on the fence about. I think it's a solid hypothesis, it's just not proven yet).

    Being stubborn and not wanting to give in to evidence is what you don't like and scientists do that all the time.

  • Did you not understand why that was the case? Why Dark Matter follows from Newton? It's because astronomers look through their telescopes and see galaxies blatantly disobeying Newton's laws of motion. They rotate in such a way they couldn't unless they had a lot more mass than they appear to have. Adding up everything we know is in the galaxy yields only a fraction of that mass.

    So either there's mass in the form of dark matter or Newton is wrong.

    Understand yet?

  • I understand what dark matter and energy are NewColdness.

    What I'm telling you, and which you obviously understand as well as I do, is that there is a difference between empirical data and opinion. Dark matter does not have empirical data to back it up. It is based on the idea that our understanding is correct, and for now it fills in a problematic hole.

    When we really find out what's going on, we will alter it.

  • Prove a religious person wrong and they'll tell you you're going to hell.

    Prove a scientist wrong and they'll give you an award.

  • Prove a dogmatic fundamentalist wrong and they'll tell you you're going to hell. Prove a religious person wrong and if they truly are open minded, they will ponder it.

    Are you really saying you've proven God doesn't exist?

    Scientists can be subject to the same human nature. That's why the peer review process exists. Because scientists have to be checked rigorously on their findings, else they would fake evidence to become famous.

    This is no new thing. It's happened hundreds of times.

  • You're an atheist with regards to Shiva, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Cthulu. So am I. I just go one god further than you.

    And apparently that condemns me to hell.

    Are you suggesting that dark matter has been faked? Tricky, seeing as how nobody has claimed to have found it yet.

    Dark matter is the most likely explanation for what telescopes are seeing. If a more likely explanation appears, scientists go with that.

    But a more likely explanation has not appeared. Hence, dark matter.

  • I'm not an athiest, as that is the position there is no God.

    I'm not suggesting dark matter was faked, and I plainly stated that I have no problems with the hypothesis at this time, except for people who act like it is proven theory.

    I was pointing out that the peer review process is in place because human beings lie, even scientists. Look at the beginning of the theory of evolution. Although the theory itself was sound, how many people glued gorilla skeletons upright trying to prove it?

  • fatsomamacheese wrote: "was pointing out that the peer review process is in place because human beings lie, even scientists. Look at the beginning of the theory of evolution. Although the theory itself was sound, how many people glued gorilla skeletons upright trying to prove it?"

    I totally agree that peer review is effective at weeding out bullcrap. On another note, what if they use Gorilla Glue(TM) brand glue to glue those gorillas together? :D

  • "On another note, what if they use Gorilla Glue(TM) brand glue to glue those gorillas together? :D"

    Well, that would be one hell of a gorilla skeleton!

  • Massive BH already discovered in every galaxy wich were observed for that purposes. Now some scientists start to doubt what was first galaxies or massive BHs.

  • @KrakDag Yes, definitely.

  • @KrakDag Not every galaxy ;)

  • @KrakDag they don't need to be in the middle

  • protons and electrons revolve around a neutron in a cell,planets, etc. revolve around a star in a solar-system, so it stands to reason.....

    stars should revolve around some-thing much bigger than them in a galaxy!

  • Actually, protons are part of the nucleus of an atom, same as neutrons. A cell is the building block of complex organisms, and is absolutely nothing like an atom. And I think you are correct about stars revolving around something at the core of whatever galaxy they're in, but it isn't necessarily a black hole or even a single object. It could be an incredible collection of 'common' matter so massive as to achieve a similar effect at a distance.

  • Dude, do you even think about what you say???? Cells and protons arn't even tought in the same classroom....... Cells are from Biology, their living things.....Protons and electrons belong it atoms, which belong in Molecules......

    FYI, Protons are positive, electrons are negative. Neutrons are neutral.....Nothing revolves around them. Protons, Neutrons, electrons, as well as cells don't have anything to do with what your talking about. At least not in the capacity you mentioned them in...

  • thats what's supposed to kill all of us, when the one in the middle of our galaxy collides with another...

  • i think there is this law that whatever absorbs light gives it off but since black holes dont follow the plan of the galaxy that means no laws for them

  • Can a black hole "Eat" another black hole? (hehe, sounds like the title of a porn movie)... but really, can that be possible?

  • LOL this made my fucking day! hahahhhah

  • imagine if there was a rare event that was so large it destroyed several galaxies in minutes, leaving no evidence of their existence. it destroys every single thing in the radius of the blast down to single Helium atoms

  • yin and yang. a picture speaks a thousand words.

  • that would be fucking intense shit

  • Couldn't a black hole POSSIBLY devour itself?

  • and those hydrogen atoms within the proto-star "rub" against eachother to cause friction. that's the first heat of a star.

    when the temperature is high enough nuclear fusion kicks in. and that's the beginning of a star.

  • Questone1:Do the sun goes toward the center of the gallaxy by closing its orbit to the center?(i dont know thats why I am sking)

    Question2: did the blackhole create the milky way galaxy? if not how do the galaxy get its shape without the blackhole in the middle.

  • and the unnoted question: those hydrogen clouds do not suddenly become stars.

    the hydrogen atoms react towards eachother by, guess what. gravity.

  • Quetion 3: Is there really a black hole in the middle of milky way

    Question 4: If there is a black hole in the middle, shouldnt the galaxy get bigger by time? or maybe there will be only changing in the stars.

    The procces of creating a star and a galaxy is quite undiscovered yet. WHY THE FUCK DO THE GAS CLOUDS SOMEHOW suddenly become more dens in some points so that this sunbuilding reaction can start ???

  • well bobma4kata.

    i can give some answers (or however it's spelled)

    question one: i'm unsure if that really happens

    question two: indeed, the supermassive black hole created the milky way. search for supermassive black holes. there should be 4 parts of that movie.

    question three: yes, there is. search on google or something.

    question 4: the galaxy's only get bigger with a collision of at least two galaxies.

    and stars change too.

  • No, Nemzal, you're right... It WON'T happen again... Or Dave the cat's anus will get you, that's right, he's out of rehab.....

    ~~ZooD - 8-)~~

  • They do the exact same thing... so wouldn't they -only- be affected if they collided at a weird angle? The gravity would disrupt both holes differently as they pass through... or if at the same level and same height they would combine and cancel one out, at least that's the way I would imagine it...

  • Rofl a black hole is a black sphere that reflects light? Wow man I have to brush up on my science after watching this, hah.

  • So are the to thought to cancel each other out? I've always wondered about this.. and the video seems to show them forming a planetary body..

  • i think if two black holes collide then they would suck each other and they would both dissapear or.. the bigger hole would suck in the smaller one:D.just my idea:P

  • I don't think they would do this. I mean, they're holes in spacetime, right? Holes of pure nothingness, we know. Now, how is a black hole of absolutely nothing meant to eat a similar hole? They're not solid, so they shouldn't be able to move. Imagine a hole in some wood being sucked into another hole in the wood - yeah, it doesn't work. Black holes are completely immovable HOLES. So, really, I think that 2 black holes would just stay where they are, or merge into a bigger black hole.

    ~~Nemzal~~

  • Or, rather, where they AREN'T...

    ~~Nemzal - Great at philosophical comedy, and more modest than a dog.~~

  • Of course, the fact that some people would say "It's not really a hole!", which is true, could completely destroy my whole argumenet there.

    I realise that I knew that, but I got caugh in a philosophical moment and made a fool of myself, just like politicians.

    Still, it makes you think, doesn't it?

    ~~Nemzal - Clever, but forgetful / showy / annoying / sorry about the constant comments, ZooD, it won't happen again.~~

  • Alright, I have no idea what I'm talking about any more, so just forget I said anything and get on with your lives - I know I need to... Incidentally, I now have no idea whether a black hole is a hole. Well, I do, but... ARRG, embarrassment, annoyance, ignorance... I'm going to stop now.

    ~~Nemzal - has now had his brain melt again~~

  • thanx ;) i understand.

  • I figured they would repel one another.... Just a crazy theory that the sub-atmoic world was not so different from space & our universe

  • for your information, so much energy is released in the form of gravitational radiation, that it kills all life within a 5000 light year radius. This is way more desturctive than all the atomic bombs humans could ever produce, and is way more destructive than a supernova.

  • too many lightyears of destructive powers

    400 or less sound more realistic

  • Uhhhh for your information.... NOBODY KNOWS! ITS NEVER BEEN WITNESSED BEFORE SO HOW DO YOU KNOW? EXACTLY! YOU DON'T!

  • whats a bh?

  • When an object becomes so dense light can no longer escape, it's called a black hole.  They're created in the massive pressure of a star's core when the star is at the end of it's life and its nuclear force can no longer oppose gravity. The star is thought to have to be several times more massive than our sun.

  • yeah, all a black really is is a huge collection of infinite gravity, I really don't think their would be like an explosion if they hit or anything lol

  • That was not an explosion, it was a graphical representation of the ripples in space time as two black holes near each-other. The model shows how they think gravity waves are released when two black holes collide.

  • at 0:19 its awesome.

  • oooh

  • Doesn't look good. Maybe it could swallow a solar system instead of just a star.

  • when such a thing gets close to a solar system, there will be no more planets. you can simply call it a star then (for some more yeras at least)

  • we know that stuff is real. we're not all in a big computer like in The Matrix. (i hope)

    what we're debating is whether things exist.

    not whether or not life is real, which doesen't make sense by the way.

  • Oh my gawd some of you twixters need to get out in life and SEE and EXPERIENCE things instead of debating if "this is the Matrix or not" because I PROMISE you if a black hole or other REAL LIFE singularity got close enough to Earth or the Solar System, you'd be too busy shitting yourself in fear to debate if it REALLY exists!! Hahahahahahaha

  • ooh i know i would.. thas y i dont like talkin about this kinda stuff.

  • you cannot allow the ignorance of children of drug addict mothers to spoil your fun.

    I heard this same bullshit years ago about "what is real?" how do you know you exist?" by the SAME people who just cannot play the stock market enough now, so I guess they KNOW whats real eh??? hahahahahahahahaha

  • Why don't you do it? Black Holes always missed any prediction or falsification. Every theory gave always gave a formal proof for falsification-validation. Black holes never did. Or maybe the proof disappeared into the hole? If Black Holes are proved, also God and Flying Spaghetti Monster are equally scientifically proved (i.e.: not proved).

  • Well, your way of thinking is wrong. First of all, u actually can't "see" a black hole, only accretion disk made of matter close-to-c'speed spinning - but I assume that you know that. Secondly - if there is no black holes, then why there is no "BIG" star inside our Galaxy core? Gravity pulls it all together, therefore should be some effect of it. While we see nothing. Only "very fast" moving stars near Galaxy core. What have enough force to move STARS? If it is not black hole then what is it?

  • Yes I know.

    We say there must be a BH in our core because our model (not the reality) can explain that pull only with gravitation. It's not an explanation for BH! Be carefull: according to our model, our Galaxy need no BH! Then we saw superfast stars so we had to put a BH here as well... but a BH with not a single feature of other supermassive BH. So strange...

    If I think in your way, I'd put BH everywhere, for Gamma rays, for cosmic rays, for dark matter, dark energy. If not, what is it? Lol

  • Please everybody remember that black holes still wait for a formal prove. What we see could be caused by something different, unless we prove it. Do we want to prove it? It seems we don't want to. It seems we must accept them as a dogmatic assumption.

    Black holes are perfect both for religion and for scientific materialism... so now you know why there is no interest in proving them (risking to falsify them, that's the point)

  • erm blackholes have been proved to exist.. and i don't know why flamed112 got marked as spam, but it is not spam lol

  • So you must be able to give some reference of the final proof lollllllllllll.

    Listen: there no debate on the fact that black holes are still a theory to be proved. Sorry for the bad news.

    I don't know about the spam.

  • fabbio8888 I have never seen a radio wave!

    Do they exist??

  • That's not a good example. We proved radio wave exist. We still miss any proof of the existence of black holes. No scientist ever dared to claim we proved black holes.

    But, you see? Millions of guys totally sure black holes ezist! That's so strange. That's faith.

  • lol i couldn't care less if they exist or not.. but from the things that scientist got so far, i believe strongly that they exist.. but dunno.. these things we can never ever prove, trust me, even if we have proven it, it is still not prove!!

  • I agree. But the same you can say for God. So have I to scientifically accept God for the same reasons?? We don't think so, isnt'it? So, believe in God, Black Holes and Flying Spaghetti Monster. But none of the above have been proved. They are equally verified.

  • Stephen Hawking proved them so get over it!

  • At most Stephen Hawking proved Hawking radiation: if a black hole exist, it must produce such radiation. If the black hole exist.

    Look, why don't you stop with short sentence and put some reference. If you don't agree with me, avoid useless answers. If you can prove you are right, then prove it.

    Just choose.

    And anyone sure about Black Holes existence, please do post some reference. How can you make such false claim?

  • Well I suppose everything you see is a radiowave, since light is a form of radiowave.

  • get a close look and maybe even go into it to see if there is a surface or exactly what it is but that would take something indistrucktable so... yea but if any thing it would be fun oh and i would check out a super massive as well

  • hmm... there are several theorys on what a black hole could be i think that a black hole is a space in witch matter has become so dens it can no longer sustain a fizzical form but is a point where gravity gets turnd in on itself so any mass that gets pulled into the void is turnd into its base components and crammed into a singularity or maybe it is a rip in the space time continuum that sucks everything into onother deminsion who knows but if i had a shipe with an antigravity sheald id love to

  • doctor who lol

  • what happened

  • a black hole is nothing

  • when they colide together do they become a white hole??

  • is it me , or does time slow down in that vid.

  • sorry, it speeds up near the end!

  • oh my god!! be sure to have your coffemakers switched off!

    ;)

  • lolololol.

  • for the people who are scared that when our sun will turns into a red giant and turns the earth into a massive fireball...THATS IN 8 BILLION YEARS

  • what a relief and here i tought i was sooner than that :)

  • think about ur grand grand grand grand grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand­grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand CHILDREN!!

  • sux to be them =)

  • LOL XD

  • yeah, but its still gonna come, right?

  • ofcourse

  • I believe that Planet X could happen, but I don't think it has anything to do with the Mayan calendar ending at 2012. I think the clalendar ending at 2012 is just like the clanedar built into my cell phone ending at 2079: they just stopped adding dates. Maybe they were tired of recording dates. I'm sure maybe a mayan would have said in their native language, "gee, maybe I should continue adding to it" but never got around to it. So I don't think it has anything to do with Planet X.

  • I like the beginning, but maybe they should add some music to go along with it

  • My ex use to have a black hairy hole

  • That means you now lack a black hole.

  • WOW WOW lolol you guys are so fucking stupid stop talking about 2012 cause you guys dont know what will happen on the year so stop fucking talking about bs

  • I think this space stuff is crap... There's like a black hole..how do ppl know there's a black hole?like Alber Einstein said something bout a black hole like in the time he lived how could he know u cant like fly to it in his time...I think this is bullcrap

  • It's not like he was some normal retard thinking shit up. There's lots of science to back up what he says. What he said explained things we didn't know about in space and it worked.

  • retarded, not "retarted" your retard...

  • radio waves dude

  • x-rays

  • the reason we know that black holes are real is because they emit vast amounts of x-rays and the stars around them are traveling much to fast to be in orbit around anything but a black hole and odviously albert einstein couldn't and we can't now so thats isn't really relevent

  • It also distorts the light from stars behind, or around it.

  • agreed ive seen better on science channel sorry though

  • Isn't there a better simulation of two BH colliding? This is horrible. =/

  • I'm confused, what was that sphere? Was it just pure matter, or..?

  • It was just 2 Black Holes in 1.

  • nothing bad is going to happen in 2012. The supposed date is Dec 21 2012. It isn't cataclysmic. It's a spiritual enlightenment, and I'm not talking about religion here.

  • when the mayans first made the calendar was in -2012 thats why it ends at 2012 its pure mathematics thats all... :D hope to clear your doubts :P

  • 2012, means not the end of the world but a great cghang in human society. We might find a clean safe fuel source or a cure 4 cancer of aids might be discovered or the world might make more steps 4 global democracy. the possibilites r endless and 4 the best :)

  • The year 2012 doesn't mean a damned thing, sorry. Everyone's getting this from the fact that one section of the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, which doesn't mean anything, really.

  • yeah, people freaked out in 1999 over 2000. people R always looking for armagedon.

  • this whole 2012 thing is based apon the planet X or Nibiru idea.

    NASA and scientist believe there is another planet that orbits the sun, they estimated its mass and radius of revolution, came out with an answer of 3600 years for one orbit.

    This planet is supposed to come close to Earth and screw up its poles, cause earth quakes and all sorts of natural disasters.

    This also intercepts ideas from Sumerians and Mayans calenders. Search planet X or Nibiru and watch some videos, do some research

  • 2012 is the year the earth completes its 26,000 year wobble known as the 'great year' coincidently in the same year (round about the same time too!) the earth and the sun will line up with the centre of our galaxy and the galactic equator, maybe the mayans believed that these two events happening simultaniously will have drastic and dyer effects on our civilisation.

  • wow we are so lucky to be alive in that event lol

  • "The earth and the sun will line up with the centre of our galaxy", big deal, don't they do that twice a year, every year?

  • imagine our galaxy to be the same shape as a doughnut with a hole in the middle, the hole represents the black hole in the middle of ours, now, imagine our solar system spinning around our galaxy at about the same level icing is on doughnuts, possibly just dipping into the dough on our travels, the year 2012, wer gonna b deep in the dough level with the hole, causin great gravitational pull, along with the suns gravitational pull, hope you understand a little better :)

  • And then we'll have The Age of Aquarius?

    I don't really belive this stuff, but I hope it's true, because I don't really like the world how it is now.

  • should i be worried?, i mean its in 2 years time!

  • 4 dude

  • No, you are just going to eat more doughnuts this year.

  • in my imagination the two bodies would be orbiting around one another extremely fast (spinning), like if you took two extreamly powerful round magnets sent them at eachother on parralel paths they hit eachother and spin redicoulsly fast. however, i dont think this has any relevence to anything physical...but its cool to think about.

  • go get suck into black hole u,joeycrack666!!!!!!

  • according to the glow, u can tell how much the old gamma rays have weakened predictably. In fact, u know when u put a tv on with no input its static. Well, go into a really thick lead light proof room and turn it on, I bet u its completely black but on.

  • they mean dopplar effect by, when the big bang occured. Since it was the brightest thing EVER and since space is so empty, light which has weakened by spreading its electromagnetic field so much(like a fire or bulb is brighter the closer you get. But cuz of the emptiness almost all the light is unobstructed and generally a universal ambient glow now at wavelengths and amplitude similar to scrambled radio chatter.

  • One word: whoa.

  • i think black holes fuel quasars as of a link between the two quasars emit millions of times the energy of the sun as of a white being the opposite of a black hole.

    the 2012 stuff is something we cant prove its biblical so we dont know what is going to happen nostradamus said it and he said so many things that were true. the thing is who knows?!

  • NASA knows, they have said that no such thing exists, if it did they would've seen it MANY years ago. Was posted on the NASA forums 26:th of December btw. If you want link, contact me. :)

  • yea if something is 4 years away we could see it

  • also, astronomy, nor any other kind of science, is bs, considering it is all around you and there's no point in denying it. the computer you are watching youtube on [and youtube itself] is a product of science. and just because people can't prove something right away, doesn't mean it is untrue, because that is what science is, HOW things work.

  • alright...for one thing, that stupid 2012 thing about all the planets aligning and all hell breaking loose on Earth is so....gah, it's just straight up BS. just cause planets align doesn't mean anything bad would happen [unless you think like some over-religious idiot from the dark ages].

    next, people have an idea!!!!!!!!!!!!1 of how old the universe is because of math and the clues of how things form in this universe, but no one knows for sure, emphasis on the term "idea".

  • I know 2012 is a bonch of people going crazy because crop circles told them it would happen, but wouldn't be fun if we where wrrong? And it happened? That would be halaryus (I want spell check).

  • hilarious.