butters Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 If people actually did the research, they would realize that the reason the calender is ending is because our present way of life is coming to end. Therefore, since a new calender is starting, a new way of life (the Awakening) is beginning as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkeeterHansen Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 No it just means they stopped writing their calendar at that point. What will happen when that calendar ends is equivalent to what happens when a desk/wall calendar ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 The earths field has alternated between periods of normal polarity, in which the direction of the field was the same as the present direction, and reverse polarity, in which the field was the opposite. These periods are called chrons. The time spans of chrons are randomly distributed with most being between 0.1 and 1 million years ,The time spans of chrons are randomly distributed with most being between 0.1 and 1 million years, with an average of 450,000 years.The latest one, the Brunhes–Matuyama reversal, occurred 780,000 years ago. Not long after the first geomagnetic polarity time scales were produced, scientists began exploring the possibility that reversals could be linked to extinctions. Most such proposals rest on the assumption that the Earth's magnetic field would be much weaker during reversals. Possibly the first such hypothesis was that high energy particles trapped in the Van Allen radiation belt could be liberated and bombard the Earth. Detailed calculations confirm that, if the Earth's dipole field disappeared entirely (leaving the quadrupole and higher components), most of the atmosphere would become accessible to high energy particles, but would act as a barrier to them, and cosmic ray collisions would produce secondary radiation of Be or Cl. There is evidence that this occurs both during secular variation and during reversals. Another hypothesis by McCormac and Evans assumes that the Earth's field would disappear entirely during reversals. They argue that the atmosphere of Mars may have been eroded away by the solar wind because it had no magnetic field to protect it. They predict that ions would be stripped away from Earth's atmosphere above 100 km. However, the evidence from paleointensity measurements is that the magnetic field does not disappear. Based on paleointensity data for the last 800,000 years, the magnetopause is still estimated to be at about 3 Earth radii during the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal Even if the magnetic field disappeared, the solar wind may induce a sufficient magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere to shield the surface from energetic particles. Hypotheses have also been advanced linking reversals to mass extinctions Many such arguments were based on an apparent periodicity in the rate of reversals; more careful analyses show that the reversal record is not periodic. It may be, however, that the ends of superchrons have caused vigorous convection leading to widespread volcanism, and that the subsequent airborne ash caused extinctions. Tests of correlations between extinctions and reversals are difficult for a number of reasons. Larger animals are too scarce in the fossil record for good statistics, so paleontologists have analyzed microfossil extinctions. Even microfossil data can be unreliable if there are hiatuses in the fossil record. It can appear that the extinction occurs at the end of a polarity interval when the rest of that polarity interval was simply eroded away.[ Statistical analysis shows no evidence for a correlation between reversals and extinctions. wikipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:D Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 This may delay my plans to built a gravity elevator Edit: Now that I think about it, wouldn't this flip throw animals off like crazy for generations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disorientating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cromeslab Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Why wouldn't you trust what NASA has to say? And what else are you hinting to, that we should be worried about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 That link is pretty weak sauce. If that was the most compelling evidence for the legitimacy of that word then I'm afraid it falls into the same category as "bling" and "swag". Which is to say, it's slang at best. Even still, it is not grammatically correct and I do maintain my position that no one should ever use that word, ever. In fact, I would suggest that I have less of an issue with "bling" because it does not pretend to take itself seriously. Disorientate is more closely equivilent to saying "could of" when you really meant "could have" but phonetics tricked your brain into spelling it incorrectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Ok let me rephrase the NASA thing.I just think they know stuff that they don,t want us to know, just my opinion.As for other things we should be worried about on this planet......warfare and mass destruction,global pandemic,overpopulation,tsunami,meteorites,and yes I said it alien invasion just to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 The word BLING BLING has been accepted into the Merriam Webster Dictionary and means Definition of BLING-BLING : flashy jewelry worn especially as an indication of wealth; broadly: expensive and ostentatious possessions Variants of BLING-BLING bling–bling also bling \ˈbliŋ\ Origin of BLING-BLING imitative First Known Use: 1999 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 The word BLING BLING has been accepted into the Merriam Webster Dictionary and means Definition of BLING-BLING : flashy jewelry worn especially as an indication of wealth; broadly: expensive and ostentatious possessions Variants of BLING-BLING bling–bling also bling \ˈbliŋ\ Origin of BLING-BLING imitative First Known Use: 1999 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Thanks, tips, but I'm well aware, that's why I cited it as an example. You can make a case for any vocalization that contains even the most simple of meanings. However, at some point you do have to draw a line as to the acceptable uses and meanings of words. It's a fine balance because new words are necessary. That is why, as I said above, I actually have more respect for a word like bling, it carries a unique connotation. Disorientated is simply a misuse of the word disoriented. And while language is capable of evolving, I think you'd be hard pressed to make a case for the former replacing the latter. Jus' cuz you can speek wif all sorta fancy wurds dun mean you ain't not should use 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 and just because a you have decided a particular word does not fit into your vocabulary does not mean that word has not been accepted by other people in world today . i will ,as have most people, accept Merriam -websters decision in matters pertaining to the acceptance of new words . My name is not tips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 It really tickles me that the person so vehemently defending slang has such atrocious grammar and, apparently, reading comprehension. I conceded the validity of bling, even if I personally dislike it. Disorientated, on the other hand, has not yet been linked to your beloved (I can barely type that with a straight face) Merriam's, as it is a misuse of another word and not a valid, grammatically correct word in its own right. I don't make the linguistic rules, I simply have an understanding and appreciation for them. And I'm certainly not always correct. Having a BA in English does not make me an expert, but I certainly have a very strong grasp of its structure and uses. So, unless you feel it necessary to argue that language abides no rules or structure, I think you'll have to admit that I have a valid point. That okay with you, tips? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 C'mon, Tips, you need to chill out a little. Is it okay if I call you Tips? Okay, Tips, here's the thing, I stated repeatedly that I conceded the point on bling. Please read my words, because you have brought that example up twice now, after the fact. Do I feel like a big man? Oh, absolutely. The biggest, like a giant crushing ants. Because grammar. You're so worked up, Tips, it's not good for your health. By the way, let me be somewhat serious again for just a moment. I think we seriously undervalue the importance of language when we debase it by using it in a shoot-from-the-hip fashion. Language is how we construct meaning in every aspect of our lives. Look at how devastated the First Nations cultures were after they were stripped of their native language. Is it too much to ask that we make an effort to use it correctly, so that it retains a useful meaning for all of us? I understand if that seems a bit dramatic, but you can see where those words haven't been heeded *cough, United States, cough* and how the degradation of language has led, at least partially, to the subjugation of the lower and middle classes. No one will take you seriously if you speak like a fool. Please, Tips, think about future generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Disorientating is not a word. That is all I came in to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryanstorm Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 C'mon, Tips, you need to chill out a little. Is it okay if I call you Tips? Okay, Tips, here's the thing, I stated repeatedly that I conceded the point on bling. Please read my words, because you have brought that example up twice now, after the fact. Do I feel like a big man? Oh, absolutely. The biggest, like a giant crushing ants. Because grammar. You're so worked up, Tips, it's not good for your health. By the way, let me be somewhat serious again for just a moment. I think we seriously undervalue the importance of language when we debase it by using it in a shoot-from-the-hip fashion. Language is how we construct meaning in every aspect of our lives. Look at how devastated the First Nations cultures were after they were stripped of their native language. Is it too much to ask that we make an effort to use it correctly, so that it retains a useful meaning for all of us? I understand if that seems a bit dramatic, but you can see where those words haven't been heeded *cough, United States, cough* and how the degradation of language has led, at least partially, to the subjugation of the lower and middle classes. No one will take you seriously if you speak like a fool. Please, Tips, think about future generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I have been a called lot of things but no one has ever called me a fool . You are not a very nice person are you remy . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 By the way, within minutes, I found a much more compelling argument in favour of disorientate than anyone else has provided! Furthermore, disorientate is not a back formation from disorientation. The Merriam-Webster Unabridged gives its etymology as "1dis- + orient + -ate." Nor is orientate from orientation. The same dictionary gives the etymology of orientate as "French orienter (from Middle French) + English -ate. There are many other verbs which have an -er ending in French and an -ate ending in English. Presumably what happened was that English borrowed some Latin verbs having the past participle ending -atus, changing it to at then to ate. Later, some French verbs ending in -er were borrowed and in some cases, -ate was added to the root as a result of the influence of the Latin etymology. In the case of orient and orientate, both the root and the root plus -ate were adopted as verbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 If the magnetic pole flips, do we have to give our money to Al Gore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.