The Horizon Project

[superluminal]

There are two cycles which might be the source of this pseudoscience nonsense.
The first is the precession of the equinoxes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes
which is the slow movement of the equinoxes (and also, of course, the solstices) around the ecliptic over time. The ecliptic crosses the midplane of the Milky Way in two places, (of course, as they are both Great Circles). This cycle takes 25,765 years.

Now it just so happens that the location of the Winter Solstice on the ecliptic is currently very near the midplane of the Milky Way as seen from Earth. It is certainly possible that this conjunction was foreseen by Mayan astronomers more than a thousand years ago; if so they were remarkably accurate. But they don't seem to mention this fact anywhere or describe it in detail in any records or legends. Incidentally the closest approach of the Solstice to the galactic plane seems to have occured already, back in 1999, with no effects whatsoever.

The other cycle is the sine-wave-like undulation of the Sun and the Solar System as it passes through the disk of the Milky Way. This is caused by the distribution of mass in the plane of the galaxy and takes roughly 66 million years for a full cycle, 33 million years for half a wavelength. The midplane of the Milky Way in this context is defined by an equal distribution of mass above and below the plane. This midplane is of course entirely different from the midplane of the galaxy as seen from Earth, as the best estimates put us about fifty light years from the midplane as defined by the mass distribution;
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qsolsysspeed.html
so we are not anywhere special at this moment.

Nothing special will happen in 2012, as there is nothing special about that date astronomically.

Good one.

 

[Read-Only]

Read only, for someone whose posts I normally respect and read with interest, your description of the 33 million and the 33 year cycles is just an amazing load of codswallop. If it was intended as some sort of tongue in cheek humour it missed the mark by a couple of galactic planes and high red shift! The best interpretation I can put on it is that you are speaking about our orientation to the galactic plane, which is a wholly different matter. I await with grim anticipation for your response.

Very sorry, Oph, but I stated what I thought was accurate. I'll quickly add that I'm no cosmologist - it's FAR from my chosen field - and I may have been mislead or simply misunderstood what I've read in more places than one.

I'n looking through some of the subsequent posts, I see where others have presented it in an entirely different way. Believe me, I'll always be the first in line to admit a mistake and would NEVER post anything that I thought was inaccurate! I'm not here to mislead and will always accept correction gracefully. Do you, perhaps, have a clear understanding of those different numbers and where the 33-year thing may have come from if it's incorrect?

 

[superluminal]

...and where the 33-year thing may have come from if it's incorrect?

A simple type-o? 33yr vs 33Myr. Maybe?

 

[Read-Only]

A simple type-o? 33yr vs 33Myr. Maybe?

Thanks for trying, String, but I don't think so. I've seen both numbers in more than one place. And usually they are presented as "33 years" and "30 million +/- 3 years." I'm now at a loss as to what to make of it. :shrug:

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you, perhaps, have a clear understanding of those different numbers and where the 33-year thing may have come from if it's incorrect?

I really have no idea where the 33 year number comes from. I was familiar with the 33 million year figure for crossing the galactic plane, though I understand this is not known (or agreed on) with a high level of precision. Like superluminal I suspected a typo had generated the smaller number. Without seeing the number in the original context (do you have a reference?) I cannot even guess.

 

[Read-Only]

I really have no idea where the 33 year number comes from. I was familiar with the 33 million year figure for crossing the galactic plane, though I understand this is not known (or agreed on) with a high level of precision. Like superluminal I suspected a typo had generated the smaller number. Without seeing the number in the original context (do you have a reference?) I cannot even guess.

Hello Oph,

Sorry for the delay - I somehow lost track of this thread and had to hunt it down.

It appears that I must bite the bullet on this one as I cannot find any good references anywhere! I wasn't trying to pull a hoax or mislead anyone - it was something that I had read in multiple places a few years back when searching to find out what all the hubbub over the Mayan Calendar was all about.

Now I'm beginning to think that it must have come from some questionable sources (I found TONS of those while reading!!) and I hereby withdraw that assertion and apologize to everyone who read what I posted.

Sorry, folks!