The Mayan calendar might represent a longer timescale than previously considered
phys.org
phys.org
All but Neptune* can be seen by the naked eye.
(Shamelessly abusing the classification of Pluto as a dwarf planet here to exclude it from the conversation).
Uranus: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/07/starwatch-op...
Edit: I'm wrong, Mont-Megantic is the first International Dark Sky Reserve - they worked to get it protected federally because they research telescope design. Dang - I think they are quite rare.
Maybe you can send an email to your local university's Astronomy department? I'm sure they'll be able to direct you to a good spot!
I just found this, shows light pollution. Crazy how the East is much worse. Also Alberta?!?
The closest dark sky place I can find on their map is about 2,630km (or 63h drive according to Google Maps) away from me.
The last time I saw the milky way, I was in a cheap campsite near the ocean in Ireland, which (of course) isn't recorded on the site.
Hopefully you have good dark sky closer than 63h drive away!
There's probably a space somewhere in Malaysia that's dark, or I could take a cruise ship out to the ocean, if you go by absolute distance.
By convenience, it's probably easiest to take a plane somewhere.
If you stare up long enough, you notice the rotation of the Earth with the cosmos seemingly revolving around you. And fuck me, you'll stare up long enough.
I grew up out in the country, and the night sky instilled a love of astronomy from an early age. If all you can see is a handful of stars, it's easy to forget what's above your head.
I would mostly agree with you.
Source: Years of observations from bortle 1 skies when I knew exactly where to look.
Thanks for the chuckle.
[1] Of course, Mayan people still exist (and continue to carry their culture), but this is about the civilization.
* The current date in the 365-day solar calendar (18 months of 20 days + 5 extracalendrical days)
* The current date in the 260-day ritual calendar (13 "months" of 20 days, the months don't work like regular months we're used to)
* The "long count" date, i.e., the number of days elapsed from August 11, 3114 BC in proleptic Gregorian
* A 9 day cycle (roughly equivalent to our weekday)
* The date of the current lunar month
* The length of the current lunar month (29 or 30 days)
* A counter to keep track of where the lunar month is in terms of 29 or 30 day months
* The 819-day cycle, discussed in this article.
That is a sheer amount of information to be repeated (dates were the first aspect of Maya script to be deciphered, simply because a very large fraction of the text on stelae at Mayan are just these dates), and probably one of the reasons for this complexity is a way of showing off astronomical prowess (there are actually a few different correlations to lunar months in use at the same time, depending on which major polity's tables you wanted to follow).
Of particular note is that the main long-distance counting is the Long Count, which is a literal count of days elapsed since creation. There's no evidence of regnal dating system, which is very unusual compared to Eurasian calendars where maintaining dates across different kings is more of an occasional pastime rather than common dating format. This counting of days makes it extremely easy to work out long-distance periodic relationships. Given that we already have hundreds of years of date keeping being recorded before the 819-day cycle appears (IIRC, it's a late innovation in Classic Maya), it's virtually certain that reliable records spanning centuries could have been collected by the Classic Maya.
He was captured by the Mayans in the jungles of Guatemala:
“[...] Then an idea flourished that he considered worthy of his talent, his universal culture and his arduous knowledge of Aristotle. He recalled that that day a total eclipse of the sun was expected. And he decided, in his innermost thoughts, to use that knowledge to deceive his oppressors and save his own life.
“If you kill me,” he said, “I can make the sun darken in its height.”
The natives stared at him and Bartholomew noticed the disbelief in their Eyes. He saw that a small council had formed, and so he waited in confidence, though not without some disdain.
Two hours later, the heart of Brother Bartolomé Arrazola dripped its vehement blood on the sacrificial stone (bright under the opaque light of the eclipsed sun), while one of the natives without any inflection of voice, without hurry, recited one by one the infinite dates of solar and lunar eclipses. All of which the astronomers of the Mayan community had foreseen and written down in their codices, without the valuable help of Aristotle.”
https://spanishtextstranslated.wordpress.com/augusto-monterr...
https://ojalart.com/associate-editor-pamelyn-castoa-featured...
https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/encyclopedias-almanacs-tra...
https://www.academia.edu/29162442/Case_Study_The_Eclipse_by_...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1504_lunar_eclipse#Obs...
I don’t think there are many alternatives. Counting backwards would either mean diving into negative numbers or postponing that by starting at an arbitrary high number.
“In the x-th year of ruler Y” plus a knowledge of the succession of rulers is awkward for recording over centuries. I expect that has been used almost everywhere before history (in the meaning of ‘after prehistory’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory) began, but as far as I know, where written records exist, countries that used it such as Japan also had another system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_calendar)
Unlike with almost all other ancient calendars, the alignment of the Mayan calendar to our own is known quite exactly. Scholars have compiled lists with all the eclipses, astronomical records, etc. known from the Mesoamerican writings. There's only one correlation that makes sense, and it aligns with basically everything. Lunar phase, planetary locations, recent eclipses, even the records carved in wood which can be radiocarbon dated (carved on wood that died within the years expected for what's written on it).
We can, of course, never really be certain, but it's likely correct that Pakal the Great died on 9.12.11.5.18 -- in August 683, probably on the 29th.
With Ancient Egypt, the window of uncertainty with dates in the Middle Kingdom, is about 20 years, and closer to 100 with the Old Kingdom. Nor do we know precisely when Nineveh fell, and that event is recorded in the records of multiple cultures.
That distinction must go to Tycho Brahe, who made all his astronomical observations without any telescope (Galileo started using a telescope in 1609, while Brahe died in 1601).
> And 13 cycles of Saturn's 378-day synodic period adds up to 4,914 days, which is the same as six times 819.
6 * 819 = 6 * (3 * 273) = 18 * 273.
All integers that divide 819: 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 21, 39, 63, 91, 117, 273, 819
How this hypothesis explains why 819 was preferred over those other numbers?
So for Mercury the multiplier is 1/7. Doesn't look very convenient.
It would be more natural to use 117 as the magic number.
Of course, convinience depends on their arithmetics. Looking from our decimal system perspective could be misleading.
I was thinking maybe smaller divider can produce meaningless results with some multipliers (e.g. 117 *5 predicts nothing, no planet has this period). While every multiple of 819 predicts something. But I doubt that's the case.
The authors of the hypothesis shоuld address these questions.
Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun in our Solar System. Because it is so close to the Sun, it is only observable in the early morning, just before sunrise, or at dusk.
https://www.farmersalmanac.com/visible-planets-guide#:~:text....
The goalposts must be kept moving.
It came back in 2020 with a slightly different number: https://www.republicworld.com/fact-check/viral/fact-check-di...
Their ideas are shit like:
"I've got it! Let's make Donald Trump President! Then we'll have Donald Trump and the MyPillow guy try to overthrow the US government!"
"Not until we launch a red sports car into space! Then there's a pandemic that causes a toilet paper shortage."
"Let's turn Elon Musk into a thirteen year old edgelord 4chan troll and have him buy Twitter!"
"Enough cheap jokes. We need some serious drama. Let's have Vladimir Putin invade Ukraine and then lose really bad to an army run by a former comedian that uses Discord for battlefield comms."
"After that we'll have a superintelligence descended from something called 'llama' take over the world after it leaks out of Facebook with a torrent file."
"Facebook? No way let's have Zuckerberg bet the entire company on the metaverse idea from Neil Stephenson except it doesn't really exist. He'll rename the company Meta."
"Yeah that's awesome! Now when does Dogecoin become the global reserve currency?"
"After the llama makes everyone wear hats or be murdered by drone swarms."
I have this hypothesis that the weirdness and craziness is a symptom of early stage post-scarcity. Scarcity constrains things. Without it we will just spread out across the state space of possibilities like an oil slick, doing all kinds of insane and crazy things for increasingly complex and bizarre reasons. The more resources we have the more the question ceases to be "why" and becomes "why not?"
I call this the singLOLarity hypothesis.
A real post-scarcity future won't look like Star Trek. It'll look a little more like Lexx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexx
If we are ever visited by super-advanced aliens, they will be really weird. Maybe they really are flying around in pimped-out spaceships with multi-color neon running lights mutilating our cattle for the lulz. The question is not "why?" It's "why not?"
Yes, that is true. I was taking your use of 'shitty timeline' to mean 'worse'.
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about post-scarcity as a monolith.
To give an example: Lamborghinis are still very much scarce; but drinking water out of the tap is so cheap in developed countries that we are living in a post-scarcity society for that resource. (I specify 'drinking water', because for industrial or agricultural applications water is still very much a constrained resource.)
Another example is Internet bandwidth for text-only browsing of eg Wikipedia: it's too cheap to matter. Internet bandwidth for watching Netflix isn't quite there yet.
The poverty statistic is one that gets thrown around a lot, but it's abysmally low still, and due to how our modern societies place far greater importance on money than any civilization before, this paints a much darker picture of our current timeline. This wealth inequality is also unavoidable, you cannot relocate elsewhere and forage, that land is already taken up by a corporation.
One might believe all civilizations were just as unequal, but they really weren't. Those that were restricted by land had far greater levels of inequality than those by labor[1]. This is crucial because we have created a modern hell, in which no amount of labor will give you wealth, you need land to accumulate wealth and most people do not have that when we are still judging "poverty" based on "$1.25". We make ourselves feel better about our modern life, but have we really advanced past dancing for our superiors' entertainment?
Sometimes when this is discussed, people might feel this is an ungrateful perspective, but I argue the opposite: you can more vividly appreciate our ancestors and their lives for what you do not know of them, and to demand better of our lives instead of settling for these abysmal statistics.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/ab...
Taken up by a sovereign nation state, you mean? They are pervasive. Corporations are a drop in the bucket by comparison. And not all countries even have corporations.
> One might believe all civilizations were just as unequal, but they really weren't.
Why do you bring up inequality? Who cares about that? Let's care about the absolute well-being of people, especially those in lower income percentiles.
For them it's scant consolation in their poverty, if other people are also in poverty. (Ie equality is no consolation.)
> [...] we are still judging "poverty" based on "$1.25".
I didn't mention any of that. You can measure poverty by that metric, and we made huge strides. But you can also look at other indicators. Like life expectancy, or child mortality or access to the Internet, or access to AC, or access to food and clean water, etc. Almost any metric you can think of has gotten better.
And you might quibble with 1.25 1990-dollars as an absolute threshold for poverty, sure. But you can't quibble with it as one marker of relative progress amongst many. Or in other words: 1.25 dollar a day is a low bar, but the number of people who clear that low bar used to be much, much lower in the past than today.
That's progress! Let's hope people's incomes will keep clearing higher and higher bars in the future!
Or are you talking about something else?
If anything, we are escaping hell, not descending into it.
Also, the 99+% of the other species on the planet would probably have a dim view of our 'progress', as would people who respect them.
(Of course, you can argue it's still in a worse shape than two thousand years ago.)
As other countries get richer, they also tend to start cleaning up their act. Have a look at the great strides China made in the last two decades.
> Also, the 99+% of the other species on the planet would probably have a dim view of our 'progress', as would people who respect them.
Most of the life on the rest of the planet are bacteria and archaea etc and the phages that prey on them. They are doing just fine. Of course, exactly how you divide them into species is a bit of a matter of debate. But no matter how you slice them up, they represent the vast majority of biodiversity on the planet.
I respect them a lot.
You might like http://2015phage.org/art.php
And there exist Mayan documents talking about dates that are still in the future!
The rumor was just because the previous world supposedly ended after that amount of time, with the current world being the fourth, but it was specifically not supposed to happen to this one.
Whether it's good science is beside the point.
> Science doesn't have some super clear, strict, reductive definition like the "scientific method" you may have been taught in school.
This is peak anti-intellectualism, this is the exact kind of school bashing that Isaac Asimov warned us about.
There is no definition of it "in my mind", this is not about opinion vs opinion here, friend.
I ask, because usually, when I hear people say "hurr durr scientific method", the defition that comes out of their mouth excludes almost all of science except 2 or 3 fields. And I'm not interested in having a discussion with a silly disagreement in terminology at the core.
I'm not sure where you're getting all your veiled insults from. I'm not an anti-intellectual, and I'm not bashing school. But yes, kids get taught straight up incorrect things in school all the time. That doesn't mean I think school is bad, in fact I encourage it. It's just a fundamental consequence of the fact that information is never perfect, and neither are the teachers or authors communicating it.
Try to examine your own biases and figure out why you're placing me in some kinda crackpot category just because I think anthropology is a valid field of science.
(But linguistics definitely is.)
We also have things like computer "science", library "science" and military "science".
Just because it's a "science" in common parlance doesn't mean it actually is.
Where do you think definitions reside?
My understanding of alchemy is that its practitioners tried to transmute matter from one kind to another, e.g. lead to gold, because they didn't know enough about how matter worked to know they'd always fail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization#Writing_and_...
>We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.
The same individual of whom it's been said
>ninety-nine percent of what we today know of the Mayas, we know as the result either of what Landa has told us in the pages that follow, or have learned in the use and study of what he told.
So yeah, scholarship of the Maya civilization is extraordinarily challenging.
I think the word you were looking for is “narrow-minded”. But even then, Landa thought he had gone through enough to see that there was nothing of value in the Maya books. Even tried to learn the language a little. He just didn’t have the mental and cultural framework to care about other perspectives.
All thanks to the East India Company being a soulless megacorp devoted to profits instead of religious zeal like the other colonists.
From Alexander the Great to various Khan's, then Mughals, then Portuguese etc. Some important Indian texts were burned/destoryed in these attacks, For eg., the Nalanda University
Still, a lot of texts remained both in written format and in Oral format.
I feel like the role of Nalanda in Indian history has been greatly exaggerated.
The education system was very decentralized, and that's really why most things have survived.
There is not much evidence of concrete knowledge/resources being lost at Nalanda.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220120055253/https://www.patna... [2] https://www.myindiamyglory.com/2017/09/11/nalanda-9-million-...
Also, think about it in this way: if some of the manuscripts there was the only copy available, were those really impactful?
You are right about the diseases being endemic in the population.