OP Subject: Patterns and Theories of formation.
Three examples of formation perceptions.
1) Ancient stories of creation.
As a Comparative Mythologist I´ve studied ancient creation stories for about 35 years, and I´ve come to the overall conclusion, that these stories at the largest tell of the pre-conditions and factual formation of the Milky Way and the Solar System, as several cultural myths describe a symbolism which clearly is connected to the Milky Way contours on both hemispheres.
Of course it can be very tricky for mythical unfamiliar debaters to go into these ancient stories, but they shall be interpreted in the light of modern cosmological concepts of basic understanding of fundamental elements and fundamental forces and and their natural behavior. I´ll try to interpret and quote the following Egyptian telling.
The Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad.
In
Egyptian mythology, the
Ogdoad (
Ancient Greek: ὀγδοάς "the Eightfold";
Ancient Egyptian:
ḫmnyw, a plural
nisba of
ḫmnw "eight") were eight
primordial deities worshiped in
Hermopolis.
The eight deities were arranged in four male–female pairs. The names have the same meanings and differ only by their endings. The names of
Nu and Naunet are written with the determiners for
sky and
water, and it seems clear that they represent the primordial waters.
Ḥeḥu and Ḥeḥut have no readily identifiable determiners; according to a suggestion due to
Brugsch (1885), the names are associated with a term for an undefined or
unlimited number,
ḥeḥ, suggesting a concept similar to the Greek
aion. From the context of a number of passages in which Ḥeḥu is mentioned, however, Brugsch also suggested that the names may be a personification of the atmosphere between heaven and earth (c.f.
Shu).
The names of
Kekui and Kekuit are written with a determiner combining the
sky hieroglyph with a staff or scepter used for words related to darkness and obscurity, and
kkw as a regular word means "darkness", suggesting that these gods represent
primordial darkness, comparable to the Greek
Erebus, but in some aspects they appear to represent day as well as night, or the change from night to day and from day to night.
Scholarly difficulties of determine the myto-cosmological names and qualities:
If egyptologists, scholars and authors have no clues of astronomical or cosmological informations in the ancient myths, they of course cannot make the correct interpretations and determinations of the mythical meanings.
Quote:
The fourth pair has no consistent attributes as it appears with varying names; sometimes the name
Qerḥ is replaced by
Ni, Nenu, Nu, or Amun, and the name
Qerḥet by
Ennit, Nenuit, Nunu, Nit, or Amunet. The common meaning of
qerḥ is "night", but the determinative (D41 for "to halt, stop, deny") also suggests the principle of inactivity or repose.
[5]
There is no obvious way to allot or attribute four functions to the four pairs of deities, and it seems clear that "the ancient Egyptians themselves had no very clear idea" regarding such functions. Nevertheless, there have been attempts to assign "four ontological concepts" to the four pairs.
For example, in the context of the New Kingdom,
Karenga (2004) uses "fluidity" (for "flood, waters"), "darkness", "unboundedness", and "invisibility" (or "repose, inactivity"), end of quote.
This clearly show me that the interpreters don´t have a clue of the cosmic knowledge extend in ancient myths.
My mytho-cosmological interpretation:
The Egyptian "4-pairs of deities represent opposite but complementary cosmological principles, conditions and qualities of formation and the initial telling deal with the chaotic pre-conditions BEFORE the very FIRM creation of the Milky Way take place.
When the Egyptian 4-pair forces and qualities is set in a whirling motion and come together in a swirling center, a "fiery light" (Amun-Ra) occurs in the center, and this central light is physically forming everything in the coming Milky Way from the chaotic clouds of gas and dust.
Conclusion: In the Egyptian creation story (and others), it is the very concept of LIGHT which creates everything, but otherwise this telling have several similarities with the modern creation or formation story. The main exception from the Standard Cosmology explanation, is that the ancient stories includes the Milky Way formation. Which of course is correct as the Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation and formation.
Important ancient perceptions:
The ancient Egyptians (and other cultures) had the Universe to be infinite and eternal of nature, but ALSO a perception of a cyclical formation of everything in the Universe via formation, dissolution and re-formation i.e. a cyclical world perception in general, hence a cyclical time perception, opposite the modern Big Bang linear time perception.
More elaborated mythical texts here.
2) Nebular hypothesis:
The
nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in the field of
cosmogony to explain the
formation and evolution of the Solar System (as well as other
planetary systems). It suggests the Solar System is formed from gas and dust orbiting the
Sun.
According to the nebular theory, stars form in massive and dense clouds of
molecular hydrogen—
giant molecular clouds (GMC). These clouds are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces within them to smaller denser clumps, which then rotate, collapse, and form stars. Star formation is a complex process, which always produces a gaseous
protoplanetary disk (
proplyd) around the young star. This may give birth to planets in certain circumstances, which are not well known. Thus the formation of planetary systems is thought to be a natural result of star formation.
The protoplanetary disk is an
accretion disk that feeds the central star. Initially very hot, the disk later cools in what is known as the
T Tauri star stage; here, formation of small
dust grains made of
rocks and ice is possible. The grains eventually may coagulate into kilometer-sized
planetesimals. If the disk is massive enough, the runaway accretions begin, resulting in the rapid—100,000 to 300,000 years—formation of Moon- to Mars-sized
planetary embryos. Near the star, the planetary embryos go through a stage of violent mergers, producing a few
terrestrial planets. The last stage takes approximately 100 million to a billion years".
My comment:
This gravitational hypothesis is excluding natural and obvious observed facts as gas and dust naturally disperses in free space and cannot do work on itself and fall into itself and give origin to a rotational formation in such a cloud.
Furthermore, the weak gravity cannot make a force which produces strong electromagnetic gamma- and x-rays as observed in galaxies and measured from the Sun i minor scales.
This gravitational hypothesis is in fact cosmologically useless as it also excludes the rest 3/4 part of the other stated and stronger fundamental forces and their qualities to explain cosmic issues and possibilities.
3) Creation by E&M forces.
As all atoms have electromagnetic charges and qualities or can be externally electromagnetic affected, it is natural and logical to assert an overall hypothesis of electromagnetic formation of gas and dust in cosmic (plasma) clouds to form stars and planets and everything else.
Electromagnetic currents flow in a double helical pattern which provide rotations everywhere when the E&M attractive polarity works on plasmatic gas and dust. When this happen, gas and dusts is ionized and heated up to such degree that very strong electromagnetic frequencies sort out gas and dust and bind it all together in a nuclear process where all kinds of stars and planets are formed. All according to the actual available gas and dust in a random cosmic could.
My overall comment and conclusion:
Cross-scientific pattern seeking, and multiple comparisons is a very important tool to discern what collectively ideas can be valid.
Ad 1) I have the ancient telling to be very valid indeed with all its natural explanations and universal perceptions.
Ad 2) This gravitational model is useless and highly exclusive, and it is bases on the unexplainable gravity and produces lots of unexplained forces and dark this and that.
Ad 3 ) In modern times, the old Greek atom, and its natural E&M qualities, the Electromagnetic Formation Model is the logical and naturally updated cosmic formation model and it explains lots of the hypothesis and unknown matters in the Standard Model.
4) Besides A Big Bang is also useless as it violates the basic scientific law of energy- and information conservation. Things doesn´t come from nothing and all thing undergoes an eternal process of changes.
OK, here we have a three way attempt to use cross-scientific pattern rekognitions to look for a natural and logical collective perception - and DON´T tell me that thousands of years of empirical ancient knowledge doesn´t qualify as astronomical and cosmological informations and genuine knowledge.
What do you say to all this?
Regards
Native
