Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Native]

Since I have hardly any knowledge of the ancient Egyptian beliefs or methods, I will leave that to you and Native restricting myself to Indo-Europen myths.
Sarasvati and the cycle of water in nature:

It´s fine by me that you focus on the Indo-European creation mythology - but it is a little too much for me to deal with "the cycle of water".

 

[Native]

The sun does travel by a boat (as per Homer) when it crosses the watery netherworld from after setting in the West to rise again in the East.

I don´t pr. automatics accept this "travelling statement". No living person (or ancestral) can get such an imagery on their retina. No one can observe "the sun travelling by a boat". When you see the Sun at daytime, you cannot se any ships/boats can you? This interpretation is contradicted by pure observation and logics.

The cosmological myths describes REAL celestial scenarios and claims of this or that mythical description shall be intuitively build up with what you can observe for real. The Ship Myths can be found all over in several cultures and you have to find a shape on the Sky which can illustrate these myths in a logical way. (Read/watch also this)

When you look at the Milky Way contours separately on each hemispheres, these shows a crescent ship/boat-like white shape which seemingly is revolving around the celestial pole area on both hemispheres. For lots of ignorant reasons authors, scholars and laymen have interpreted this celestial scenario as "a ship sailing with the Sun at it´s deck" where this scenario just shows the celestial poles - marked in ancient times as a dot; a ring; a circle; a wheel with spokes and even with a star.

The "solar symbolism with ships, barques or chariots" of which we can read of in lots of books and in diverse encyclopedia, is a huge mythological/astronomical confusion

The word samâna is meaningless unless there is some difficulty in traversing over one part of the celestial sphere as distinguished from the other.

Well, maybe the etymology of the word "samâna" would give more meaning if connected and included into what I have explained here? Please investigate this

 

[Native]

There is nothing metaphysical about Dark Matter (85% of all matter in the Universe) or Dark Energy (68.3% of the total energy in the universe). They are Physics.- Dark matter - Wikipedia, Dark energy - Wikipedia

As long as scientists have´t found and explained this illusive and assumed "dark matter" it is kind of metaphysical too me. I know scientists have observed different scenario to which they ascribe this metaphysical matter, but ALL theories of this are just made by circumstantial observations and conclusions and not by factual evidences which holds waters in the cosmological court.

The idea of "dark matter" have about 100 years on it´s back, but it could be solved already when astrophysics found (in 1932) that their gravitational ideas of celestial motions was contradicted by direct observations of how the orbital motion of stars in our galaxy is moving, namely with the same individual orbital velocity around the galactic center.

The scientific scholars was in plain panic over this. If so "all stars would be slung out of the galaxy", they said. And then they invented a "force of dark matter" to hold the stars back in our galaxy. Instead, they should have investigated their own concerns and reasons of "seeing stars flying away from the galaxy".

Funny enough, ancient stories of creation describes just a scenario of stars (and the entire Solar System) moving away from the galactic center because of an expanding (biblical: expelling) motion from their central "Garden of Eden" = the galactic center area, from which everything was/is created in our galaxy.

About

about Dark Matter (85% of all matter in the Universe) or Dark Energy (68.3% of the total energy in the universe). They are Physics.

This is again an assumption based on the standing ideas of gravitation where particles and mass in the Universe are measured as weight and its cosmological motions

The scientists with this gravitational approach to cosmos ignores the fact that gas and particles have atomic electromagnetic properties AND that the force of electromagnetism is much stronger than the supposed gravity, Watch the strength of the Fundamental Forces here. (for some reasons they separate the electric forces where there is no separation, but never mind this for now)

The supposed force of gravity is by far the weakest of all fundamental forces and by just counting of this, those scientists "needs lots of more matter" in order to explain the observed motion of gas, dust, stars and galaxies. Why is that? This is because the Universe is driven by much much stronger forces than gravity.

To count on the weakest force of all, of course results in all kinds of contradictive observations and leads further on to all kind of contraintuitive speculations of how cosmos works. This is why add hoc assumptions are used in this part of the cosmic theories.

It is not "PHYSICS" to ignore 3/4 part of the strongest fundamental forces, This is just ignorance at it worst.

 

[Native]

Sarasvati and the cycle of water in nature:

After a dwelling more on the texts here, I admit that it is relevant after all. My immediate thought was that it dealt with the geographic cycle of water instead of a celestial description of "heavenly rivers of gas -and dust".
I think my secondary reaction also was because of the very amount of the texts. I would prefer smaller parts "slowly and slowly" as you said earlier.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sarama "In one myth, she was the cause of Milky way by vomiting the milk . . " shows me right when stating Sarama to be a Milky Way Goddess, doesn´t it?

Now, you are talking like a dumb-head. How many times do I need to tell you that it is not like that?

It´s fine by me that you focus on the Indo-European creation mythology - but it is a little too much for me to deal with "the cycle of water".

Yeah, it is not easy to understand for one who is not from that culture, and who in addition, tries to decide things about which one does not have knowledge.

No one can observe "the sun traveling by a boat".

You need to check Greek mythology and Homer's writings. BTW, how does sun reaches to rise in East after setting in West and the netherworld being a dark ocean? That is the easiest way which will come to mind. No one can see it happening. The reference is from Dr. Warren’s "Paradise Found", 10th Edition (1893) Part V, Chap. V, pp. 250-260.

 

[Polymath257]

I don’t think Native completely understand that no cannot see the galactic centre of the Milky Way with the naked eye, whether it be today or in the distant past.

What people actually see was only a tiny fraction of the Milky Way, and with the spiral arm (Sagittarius arm) blocking the view of the centre, no can directly see galactic bulge.

So how can Native claim that Egyptian god Re be the central light of the Milky Way, when no Egyptians could possibly see the centre?

Native claiming that the Re is the centre is nothing more than anachronistic claim.

As your wiki article indicated, astronomers can only be detected the location of the centre through radio telescope aimed at the vicinity of Sagittarius A.

This spiral arm contained stars, star clusters and clouds of gases and dust (similar to interstellar medium of nebulae). And this is why the centre cannot be seen.

Even with a powerful optical telescopes cannot view the centre, so how could any ancient astronomer view the centre.

I believe infrared will also go through the dust between us and the center. But not visible light.

If you go outside on even the darkest night, you will NOT see a 'central luminosity' in the Milky Way with only the naked eye.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Sarama "In one myth, she was the cause of Milky way by vomiting the milk . . " shows me right when stating Sarama to be a Milky Way Goddess, doesn´t it?

Now, you are talking like a dumb-head. How many times do I need to tell you that it is not like that?

You don´t have to be rude because I take your posted myth sentence seriously.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As long as scientists have´t found and explained this illusive and assumed "dark matter" it is kind of metaphysical too me.

You mean they should bring it and show it in some museum, or even better give piece of it in your hands? There is no doubt bout the existence of these two entities but finding all information about that takes time. Even Higg's Boson was known to science decades before they could finally find it. Einstein and Satyendra Nath Bose predicted it in 1920.

After a dwelling more on the texts here, I admit that it is relevant after all. My immediate thought was that it dealt with the geographic cycle of water instead of a celestial description of "heavenly rivers of gas -and dust".
I think my secondary reaction also was because of the very amount of the texts. I would prefer smaller parts "slowly and slowly" as you said earlier.

That is why I will not post any other theory today, so as to give you time to understand and enjoy the 'water cycle'. The topic was already complicated. Making it briefer would have made it incomprehensible.

 

[Native]

Yeah, it is not easy to understand for one who is not from that culture, and who in addition, tries to decide things about which one does not have knowledge.

I commented on this here #204Native, Today at 12:22 PM

 

[Native]

If you go outside on even the darkest night, you will NOT see a 'central luminosity' in the Milky Way with only the naked eye.

Of course you can. There very bulged, central and luminous area of the Milky Way can clearly be observed with the naked eyes.

 

[Native]

Even Higg's Boon was known to science dacades before they could finally find it. Einstein and Satyendra Nath Bose predicted it in 1920.

Do you really believe in a "god particle" which "gives weight to everything"? Don´t you know that all atoms and particles are governed by their electromagnetic properties of attraction and repulsion? This Higg´s Bozon invention is just another of the gravity ghosts.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you can. There very bulged, central and luminous area of the Milky Way can clearly be observed with the naked eyes.

You won't see that picture if you go out on a dark night using only naked eyes. That is a time-exposure photograph that collects far more light than the eyes can.

Have you been to a dark site and looked up? I am an amateur astronomer. I have. Many times.

 

[Native]

That is why I will not post any other theory today, so as to give you time to understand and enjoy the 'water cycle'. The topic was already complicated. Making it briefer would have made it incomprehensible.

Thank you I very much appreciate this.

 

[Polymath257]

You mean they should bring it and show it in some museum, or even better give piece of it in your hands? There is no doubt bout the existence of these two entities but finding all information about that takes time. Even Higg's Boson was known to science decades before they could finally find it. Einstein and Satyendra Nath Bose predicted it in 1920. That is why I will not post any other theory today, so as to give you time to understand and enjoy the 'water cycle'. The topic was already complicated. Making it briefer would have made it incomprehensible.

Um, an Einstein-Bose condensate is quite different than a Higg's boson. The latter was predicted by Higg's in 1964.

 

[Native]

You won't see that picture if you go out on a dark night using only naked eyes. That is a time-exposure photograph that collects far more light than the eyes can.
Have you been to a dark site and looked up? I am an amateur astronomer. I have. Many times.

Of course you cannot expect to observe a central light as for instants as the sun, but surely you can observe an overall more luminous area where the most star formations takes place.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you cannot expect to observe a central light as for instants as the sun, but surely you can observe an overall more luminous area where the most star formations takes place.

I encourage you to go to a dark site and see for yourself.

 

[Native]

Um, an Einstein-Bose condensate is quite different than a Higg's boson. The latter was predicted by Higg's in 1964.

My topic was "dark matter" and not Higg´s Boson, which was brought into discussion by Aupmanyav.

 

[Native]

I encourage you to go to a dark site and see for yourself.

Just by googling "amateur photo´s of the Milky Way center", you can find lots of images in all kinds of better or lesser quality. Are you sure you don´t need new spectacles?

Already in the Scandinavian Bronze Age, our ancestors watched the white contours of the Milky Way and made different kinds of Rock Carving figures as seen here - and these images was of the northern part of the hemispheres WITHOUT the light from the Milky Way central area.

 

[Polymath257]

Just by googling "amateur photo´s of the Milky Way center", you can find lots of images in all kinds of better or lesser quality. Are you sure you don´t need new spectacles?

You realize those amateur photos are time lapsed, right? You won't see what those photos show with the naked eye.

Again, I encourage you to go out yourself to a dark spot and see what you see.

 

[gnostic]

I believe infrared will also go through the dust between us and the center. But not visible light.

If you go outside on even the darkest night, you will NOT see a 'central luminosity' in the Milky Way with only the naked eye.

The focus was on what any of the ancient civilisation could possibly see - through the naked eye.

So they wouldn't have the technology to view the galactic centre, so no infrared, no x-ray, no microscope, and no any other radio wave.

Even if he owned a normal optical telescope, he won't be able to see the centre.

So the Egyptian astronomers wouldn't be able to see the light from central bulge.

And even if Native was to go outside tonight, without a telescope that are capable him to view different wavelengths, Native, too wouldn't be able to see the central bulge of the Milky Way.

But he is too stubborn and ignorant to know that, meaning he is cannot learn from his mistake.

I have already explained to him that all he see of the Milky Way, is the Sagittarius spiral arm, not the centre. All he see are close by stars, and the dust and gas, are on that spiral arm.

He doesn't understand that.

He still think he can see the galactic centre. That's just wilful ignorance.