There Will Be No Galactic Alignment in 2012

reply to post by travisirius
Also, when Terence McKenna worked with the I Ching's King Wen structure (the way the hexagrams are actually in the most commonly accepted translations (and created the Timewave Zero software in DOS, he ended up with 2012 as the end of a cycle for much of European and North American history. He became aware of the Mayan Calendar later.

OP: the astrological event is supposed to be the sunrise on the northern hemishpere happening closest to the purported center of the Milky Way On the Day of the Winter Solstice.

Now scientists - I read - quoted by Jenkins are unsure about where that is exactly, there are disagreements as to a degree or two. That might mean 72 degrees to this or that direction, or even 144 degrees.
Your software has the last quoted picture showing the Sun on that day closer to the Galactic Center than on any other one before. OK. If visually guessing, and supposing the SW is closest to one school's estimate of where the GC is, there are still a number of years to go. One degree will equal roughly 72 years as according to precession. So the event may be taking place soon - or it already started. To eevryone's beliefs, this is a merely astrological event, and has no direct physical bearings.
I understand the Sun crosses that point near the day of the winter solstice but not at sunrise. Calculate sunrise.
My Hindu astro program says Sunrise at Greenwich, England (0) will take place at 8:10:09. This is 5:48:46 Sagittarius on the sidereal scale, or 29:52:30 on the Tropical Zodiac. Is that where current science places the MW center?

If you think a GA happens every year you have a lot to learn.

reply to post by letscit


So, just because the source is an alternative news site you will take it for fact? Don't get me wrong it's nice to see SOTT not fearmongering for once, but with the exception of the electric universe theory and the digs against NASA, they are presenting the same facts that I and others have posted time and again in numerous threads.

Wiki says: "Coordinates of the Galactic Center were first found by Harlow Shapley in his 1918 study of the distribution of the globular clusters. In the Equatorial coordinate system they are: RA 17h45m40.04s, Dec -29° 00' 28.1" (J2000 epoch)."
en.wikipedia.org...
John Major Jenkins writes: "Thus, the Galactic Alignment "zone" is 1998 +/- 18 years = 1980 - 2016. This is "era-2012."
alignment2012.com...
This is where a Western astrologer places the GC: "Galactic Centre at 26 degrees 57 minutes Sagittarius tropically"
www.sevenray.net...
That is far off, it would have happened already.

Anyway, apart from the possible solar wind maximising that year, I don't expect more than what is already unfolding. And we all know that. Som kin d of system is in its deeath throes and a new system is starting that has long antecedents. If the calculations are a wee bit off as to the GC, it may mean decades of errors.
Jenkins has documented that it is the SUNRISE observable at the Mayan temple that should happen on the Winter equinox above Hunab Kui in late Mayan astronomy. Of course it crosses that point every year but Solsctice Day Sunrise certainly narrows our search down - if we know what to look for.
That information is the exact point of the GC as transferred to the Ecliptic plane (the path of the Sun) used in astrology, where things are no more in space but their transjections are derived onto an askew circle where the Sun travels around, or to be more precise, the equator of that sphere.

Wiki: "The equivalent system referred to as J2000 has the north galactic pole at 12h 51m 26.282s +27° 07′ 42.01″ (J2000) (192.859508, 27.128336 in decimal degrees), the zero of longitude at the position angle of 122.932°.[4] The point in the sky at which the galactic latitude and longitude are both zero is 17h 45m 37.224s −28° 56′ 10.23″ (J2000) (266.405100, -28.936175 in decimal degrees). This is offset slightly from the radio source Sagittarius A*, which is the best physical marker of the true galactic center. Sagittarius A* is located at 17h 45m 40.04s −29° 00′ 28.1″ (J2000), or galactic longitude 359° 56′ 39.5″, galactic latitude −0° 2′ 46.3″.[5""
en.wikipedia.org...

How does that count down to the Ecliptic? Will someone be so nice as to calculate it? Then I can pinpoint the year in which the sunrise on 12:21 on the NH will be closest to that point.
Thank you.

As to others, no precessional cycle I know ends there. The tropical has no precession, so it yields zilch. We will enter the Age of sidereal Aquarius around 2380 +- five years (this is counted on the spring equinox and not the winter one but the four points are moving together.
Various sidereal and Indian countings yield years around 2012 but due to disagreement of data from the GC, according to Jenkins, it could be anywhere between 1998 and 2016.
My own guess is that 2014-15-16 will be difficult years in Oriental astrology. A final countdown started in 1999 and we are in an increasing change period. Jenkins thought a lot about this and said the times around this peaking solstice are going to important and not only the moment itself.

Please calculate it with me and I will say if various sidereal astro programmes will mark sunrise on dec 21 closest to that point.

Maybe you should be more concerned with the culmination of the procession of the equinox, the thirteenth sign and the alignment of the divine cross with the terrestrial cross. Nostradamus was alluding to this time specifically in his drawings in his lost book. The hands of time will stop at this point, this is secret ancient knowledge and his attempt to warn us.

reply to post by lestweforget


You are speaking truth.

reply to post by Kokatsi


Actually in the original edition of The Invisible Landscape, McKenna doesn't give a specific date, he merely mentions the year 2012. And then only twice. It wasn't until 1983 when new calendar correlations were published that McKenna decided that December 21 was the date. However, modern research has indicated that the present correlation we use is wrong, meaning the Long Count does not end on December 21, 2012.

Jenkins' book ends with the same conclusion - the two dates may not coincide. At the time, Mayan counting was not yet rectified. However, he does meticulous research on what the Mayans were seeking: the year when the sunrise on the solstice day happens above a particular hill near their astrological monument coinciding or closest to the translation of Hunab Kui to the middel equator of the ecliptic (expressed in Western terms.)
That we could determine but I am unwilling to trust astrologer's web sites without sources. Astronomers for understandable disdain of astrology just do not care to translate the area current thought of as the MW Center to the ecliptic plane (the midpoints of the Sun's path) on Earth, because that would be astrology, not astronomy. AStrologers of these days are not famouns for their astronomical calculations. I will ask around but there seems to be nothing more to google at this point.
See my problem?
If this translation would be calculated, we could compare it to how much it differs from the corrected Mayan long count. If there is indeed a difference on the solstice years sunrise date it would be meaningful in our research. If not, the 2012 folks would be OK, and from then on we could jump to interpretations.
One thing has been determined by Jenkins is what what we look for is the sunrise on the ecliptic day coinciding with the translated longitude of the GC.

reply to post by Kokatsi


Except the Mayans put no emphasis on solstice days. It is highly likely that the actual end of the Long Count does not fall on a solstice or equinox.

reply to post by Kokatsi


I'm not quite sure what your asking to be calculated here. Are you talking about coordinate conversion from Equatorial to Galactic coordinates?

When I was studying Physics and Astronomy at the University, I specialized in the location of stars in space, I went so far as to derive the equations for conversion myself, using spherical trigonometry, which gets too involved to go into here. There is a simpler way to do the conversions, by first converting the Equatorial coordinates (RA, DEC) into x,y, and z values along those respective axes, then applying an algebraic matrix to those coordinates to get the Galactic x,y, and z coordinates, then reconverting from those to angular coordinates (l,b in galactic coordinates) again.

There is a good discussion of the process, along with the matrices to be used for Epoch J2000 and J1950, and the process to derive the matrix for any other epoch here, here, and here, in that order.

There is also some discussion there of the code used to program a computer to do the work for you, but I think it's in BASIC. I used FORTRAN to program a VAX to do it (because I'm lazy, and FORTRAN already has the inverse trig functions built in), so I wouldn't be much help there.

I might be more help if I knew what you wanted converted to what, of if that's even what you're asking there.

Good luck!

Originally posted by Kokatsi
However, he does meticulous research on what the Mayans were seeking: the year when the sunrise on the solstice day happens above a particular hill near their astrological monument coinciding or closest to the translation of Hunab Kui to the middel equator of the ecliptic (expressed in Western terms.)

Which hill? in which ceremonial center? The Mayans had a plethora of them, and you're going to need latitude and longitude to figure out what I think it is you're trying to figure out. The latitude will be the more important of the two.

Also, if I'm reading this right, you've introduced yet another celestial coordinate conversion into the mix, and now the terrestrial one. You seem to be talking about 3 entirely separate reference systems: Equatorial, Ecliptic, and Galactic, plus a particular location on Earth. I'm not real clear here on which intersect points you're seeking, but there are two for each pair of systems, an ascending node and a descending node.

If you're looking for the place where the galactic center lies on the ecliptic, there isn't one. There isn't a point where the galactic center lies on the Celestial Equator, either. Because of the inclination of each of those systems to the other, and the orientation of the planes, the galactic center will fall either above or below the plane of each of the other two systems, and will lie ON only the Galactic equator.

I'm gonna quit typing now, since I still can't quite figure out what you're looking for.

Originally posted by St Udio

by 'apparent' alignment i mean that our Sun & Earth are some 2 LY (light years) above the imaginary Equator Plane of the Galaxy...

The Sun is actually about 50 LY (or around 15 parsecs) above the Galactic Plane.

reply to post by nenothtu


That was my understanding as well. Phage posted a link to it too. That we have been rising above the galatic center. How can we align with the center of something in which we have been steadily rising above?

History Channel should be held accountable for creating so many arm chair astronomers. It's quite disgusting that an entire field of study can so easily be destroyed and mocked with just a few doomsday shows.

reply to post by spinalremain


The way I understand it, there is an up and down sinusoidal wave motion built in to the lateral orbital motion as the sun orbits the galactic center. We are currently still on the upswing of the sinus wave component, and will not start back "downward" (which is a relative term in space, eh?) for a couple thousand more years. In other words, we're currently 50 LY "above" the plane, and getting FURTHER from it, not closer, at the moment, and will be for the next couple thousand years.

I'm not quite sure what this "alignment" business has been about, any how. A straight line can ALWAYS be drawn from the sun to the galactic center. For it to be an honest alignment, then at least one other body has to be present to fall on to that line, and given our distance above the galactic plane, it's just not possible for all three to line up AND align with the galactic plane.

There are somewhere between 200 and 400 billion stars in the Milky Way. At any given instant, and only requiring a minimum of 3 bodies for a true alignment, there are literally THOUSANDS of such alignments, and a lot of them will be a lot closer to being "true" alignments than the one under discussion. I have to wonder why none of those have yet blown up the universe.

The ecliptic is tilted something like 62 degrees from the galactic plane, and oriented obliquely to it with respect to the galactic center. It appears as an "oval" rather than a circle from that direction, because of that orientation. In light of that, I just can't see this alleged "alignment" happening, so clearly I'm just not understanding what it is they are expecting to line up.

Phage used Stellarium in his original post. A useful program to illustrate what I'm talking about with this ecliptic orientation is Celestia. Fire up Celestia, turn on the "orbits" option so that you can see the outline of the ecliptic (which is the mean orbital plane of the Earth around the sun), and run out several AU in the direction of the galactic center. Look back at the solar system, and tell me how this alleged alignment is supposed to happen in the time frame postulated.

reply to post by Phage


I suppose that Mayans used another version of your "Stellarium" software

reply to post by greenCo

No, probably not.

They were definitely aware that the Sun follows a set path through the sky (the ecliptic) and that the path crosses the "Great Rift" every year. It's even possible (but I doubt it) that they were aware that it would be in the general area during the solstice of 1900, and 1910, and 1950, and 2000, and 2011, and 2013, and so on, and every year in between.

Here are a couple of pictures of the solar system at 0700 UTC on 21 Dec 2012, to show the orientation of the solar system precludes any direct alignment. These are from the direction of the center of the galaxy, looking outward, and oriented so that the galactic plane is horizontal, across the screen (They are oriented on the plane of the galaxy as a baseline, rather than trying to orient it on the Earth's equator).

First, the solar system overall:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6e2b9ce7ea9b.jpg[/atsimg]

This shows the orientation of the mean ecliptic. Each blue oval is a planetary orbit, demonstrating that NONE of the planets can be in a true alignment with the galactic center. In order for them to be in alignment, the orbits would have to show up as a single blue line bisecting the sun, rather than as an oval with the sun in the center, AND the planet in alignment would have to be exactly on the opposite side of the sun in that orbit (or exactly on this side for an inferior alignment), rather than at any other point in the orbit

Next, the Earth's orbit is highlighted in red:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b535d4e50247.jpg[/atsimg]

Which demonstrates that the Earth and sun cannot be aligned with the galactic center, either.

It could be argued that they're "close" to alignment, but the fact is that there are literally thousands of other alignments throughout the galaxy, every single day, that are far closer, yet we seem not to have imploded yet.

"Close" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

reply to post by Cuervo


Haha....that's great. Yes I would have to agree definitely wouldn't make a good politician; however as far as the 2012 thing goes, I read a lot of Michio Kaku the author of, "Physics of the Impossible" (great read by the way) and I've watched him on Fox News once about how in 2012 there will be solar flares unusually large that could wipe out our entire power grid. This is coming from someone who is theoretical physicist and studies this kind of stuff for his day job. The power grid being wiped out is kind of a big deal as you readers would know. Ill look more into it and if its worthy ill create a thread. Sorry to reply with this information figured it was sub-relevant to the 2012 topic.

reply to post by Phage


Well, smart-bahooky, I know that. lol I just mean there's always a straight line between the sun and galactic center and the sun and us. But yes, twice a year do the three line up, so I don't think that's what could end us all in 2012. I think something else big might happen. A visitation from ETs, who knows. We'll just have to say and see.

The alignment idea was always Jenkins proposal I believe.

Phage is correct there is no real alignment, and there is a very close alignment every year. What is important is the alignment occuring on solstice, But the closest alignmet apparently already occured on solstice 1998.

So if it is not an alignment what could the Maya have been refering too?

There is something special that happens in the skies of southern Mexico on the day, if we are to consider the Mayan mythology and symbolism.

The sun crosses from on side of the ecliptic to the other, and fits almost perfectly within that day, only from that geographical perspective.

We have a rebirth of the daily sun, sunrise. A rebirth of the yearly sun, solstice. And a rebirth of the galactic sun occuring on the same day. Symbolism folks.

The Sun is the father the dark rift is the mother, what is symbolised in the sky is the act of procreation, the creation of life, the true miracle that we have taken for granted.

I don't know if this interpretation is correct of course, and it could symbolise many things. I would say however that it would be impossible to understand 2012 mythology without understanding a little of the Mayan mythos.