Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Native]

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.

How do you think i became interested in the Milky Way Mythology in the first place? Yes, by watching the Milky Way in a dark night, and see a fine but faint band of the Milky Way - and this was just on the northern hemisphere and not on the more luminous southern hemisphere.

Seeing the Milky Way

"When amateur astronomers refer to the Milky Way, they usually refer to the faint band in the sky, although any time you look anywhere in the sky, all the stars you see are part of the Milky Way because we are in the Milky Way.

To see what the ancients called the Milky Way, you must first find a truly dark location. The maps on this web site show the areas in the world with the brightest and darkest sky. If like most people on Earth you live in a city, you can probably identify it as one of the white splotches"

 

[Polymath257]

How do you think i became interested in the Milky Way Mythology in the first place? Yes, by watching the Milky Way in a dark night, and see a fine but faint band of the Milky Way - and this was just on the northern hemisphere and not on the more luminous southern hemisphere.

Seeing the Milky Way

"When amateur astronomers refer to the Milky Way, they usually refer to the faint band in the sky, although any time you look anywhere in the sky, all the stars you see are part of the Milky Way because we are in the Milky Way.

To see what the ancients called the Milky Way, you must first find a truly dark location. The maps on this web site show the areas in the world with the brightest and darkest sky. If like most people on Earth you live in a city, you can probably identify it as one of the white splotches"

Agreed. The Milky Way appears to the naked eye as a faint band across the sky. And you should be in a *dark* spot to really see it.

But you *cannot* see the central part of the Milky Way with only the naked eye! You *cannot* see a 'luminous center' with just the naked eye. I *encourage* you to go to a dark site and see for yourself.

 

[Native]

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.

The fine thing about modern cosmological science is that they´ve discovered the Sagittarius A star which defines the precise center with all kind of telescopes and with all kinds of different light filters.

(According to their thoughts of a "black hole" in this center, they should not see anything at all, but this is another contradictive matter)

Then when referring to ancient myths and what our ancestors could see, modern "technologians" demands the same level of observations as from telescopes, which is very inconsistent indeed. Of course our ancestors could not locate the Sagittarius star with their naked eyes and modern humans can neither.

It is without any doubts that for instants the Egyptians DID observe the (southern hemisphere) galactic contours and imaged this as "a woman in the night Sky", named Hathor, and they connected this myth to the creation of the Milky Way galaxy.

 

[Native]

But you *cannot* see the central part of the Milky Way with only the naked eye! You *cannot* see a 'luminous center' with just the naked eye. I *encourage* you to go to a dark site and see for yourself.

I recommend new spectacles for you.

 

[Polymath257]

I recommend new spectacles for you.

Have you tried it yourself?

 

[Native]

Your ignorance is staggering.

The view of ancient is no different from today, and what you are seeing is the spiral arm, not the galactic centre. What you are seeing the nearest stars causing the clouds of interstellar dust and gas (just like the nebula), the glow on the arm, not the light from MW's centre.

And where does this "glow" on the arm stems from?

PS: If you cannot restrict yourself from posting personal and emotional judgements, I prefer you to just leave my thread.

 

[Native]

Have you tried it yourself?

No need to. I can observe the Milky Way band very fine, thank you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Mass, like the other three - time, space and energy; is great mystery of Physics. We know the electric charges, energies, momentum, etc., but we do not know how these change into 'mass'. If I am wrong, probably @Polymath257 will write about it.

“The solution formulated by Higgs, Englert, and Robert Brout proposes that all of space is filled with a field that interacts with the weak force particles to give them mass. It does so because the field is assumed not to be zero in empty space. This nonzero ground state violates a symmetry that is considered fundamental to quantum field theory. Earlier work had shown that this kind of symmetry breaking led to a massless, spinless particle that was ruled out by experiments. Englert, Brout, and Higgs showed how one could make this unwanted particle disappear by coupling the space-filling field to the weak-force field. When they worked out all of the interactions, they found that the force particles effectively had a mass, and the unwanted, massless, spinless particle was essentially absorbed by the weak particles. These particles gained a third spin state as a result, and the only remaining spinless particle was the massive Higgs boson.

Brout and Englert and Higgs put forth a very clever idea, now known as the Higgs mechanism,” says Michael Turner of the University of Chicago. “It provides an explanation for one of the simplest questions one can ask: why do particles have mass? Such a simple question—but very profound—that many don’t even think to ask it.” To validate this mechanism, particle physicists constructed the LHC, the largest, most technologically sophisticated machine ever built, says Joseph Incandela, spokesperson for the CMS experiment, which was one of the detectors that spotted the Higgs boson. “I think people look at this and feel that particle physics has pulled off something like a moon landing here,” he says."
Physics - Focus: Nobel Prize—Why Particles Have Mass
Higgs mechanism - Wikipedia

 

[Native]

The mystery of mass has not been solved yet. We know the electric charges, energies, momentum, etc., but we do not know how these change into 'mass'. If I am wrong, probably @Polymath257 will write about it.

In my opinion "electric charges, energies, momentum" don´t CHANGE into "mass" at all but that electric currents and electromagnetic fields works in every levels, especially effective on the plasma stage, and gives cause to rotation and orbital motions everywhere, all according to the basic magnetic qualities of attraction and repulsion.

Well, let´s see if Polymath can come up with something reasonable and plausible in this matter.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even if Polymath describes it, will we be able to understand it? It requires a good grounding in Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Native]

Even if Polymath describes it, will we be able to understand it? It requires a good grounding in Quantum Mechanics.

If he can and will, I would like to read how/if Quantum Mechanics can describe a full dynamical scientific model of the formation of the Universe, (Quantum Cosmology) which is a part of my topic here.

 

[Native]

I´ve skimmed this Quantum Cosmology article:
The Origins of the Universe: Quantum origins
This "model" have it´s problems, but maybe Polymath would like to explain these to us?

 

[Native]

A brief explanation of Quantum Cosmology
"Quantum cosmology is the attempt in theoretical physics to develop a quantum theory of the Universe. This approach attempts to answer open questions of classical physical cosmology, particularly those related to the first phases of the universe.

The classical cosmology is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity (GTR or simply GR). It describes the evolution of the universe very well, as long as you do not approach the Big Bang. It is the gravitational singularity and the Planck time where relativity theory fails to provide what must be demanded of a final theory of space and time. Therefore, a theory is needed that integrates relativity theory and quantum theory.[1] Such an approach is attempted for instance with the loop quantum gravity, the string theory and the causal set theory.[2]

I´ve earlier said about the 4 fundamental forces that I consider the 3 strongest electromagnetic forces as 1 - and that I refute "gravity" to be a fundamental force since this is embedded in the 1. (This was even BEFORE I read the following)

It turns up that "quantum_gravity tries to do just that:
Loop quantum gravity - Wikipedia
Loop quantum gravity (LQG) is a theory of quantum gravity, merging quantum mechanics and general relativity, making it a possible candidate for a theory of everything. Its goal is to unify gravity in a common theoretical framework with the other three fundamental forces of nature, beginning with relativity and adding quantum features.

But as "gnostic" and others have said many times: "He does not understand"

 

[gnostic]

The fine thing about modern cosmological science is that they´ve discovered the Sagittarius A star which defines the precise center with all kind of telescopes and with all kinds of different light filters.

Correct.

They found the location of the galactic centre. But only through filters for more powerful optical telescopes and because of the radio source from Sagittarius A, from radio telescopes.

And you do seem to understand that the Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy, with some spiral arms and spurs on the disk shape galaxy.

But what you don’t seem to understand since that while spiral arms twirled on that disk, it is not possible to see the centre if one of those spirals is between the centre and the Earth.

The Milky Way has 4 main spiral arms, and some spurs.

Our Solar System is situated on the Orion spur, and this spur is between the Perseus spiral arm and the Sagittarius spiral arm.

It is the Sagittarius arm that is between the earth and the central bulge of the Milky Way.

What you see outside with the naked eye, is actually Sagittarius arm, not the Milky Way’s centre.

Even if you do own an optical telescope, you still wouldn’t see the centre, because the dust are thick enough to block your view of the centre.

The light glow come from stars illuminating the interstellar gas, by ionising the gas, while the interstellar dust blocking other part of ionised gas.

The band of glowing light is not from the galactic centre but from the Sagittarius arm, and like I said, the stars illuminating the gas. This is like when you view any nebula.

The nebulae consisted of interstellar dust and gas. The gas are mainly of hydrogen, as well as helium, and trace elements of other gases (eg carbon, oxygen, nitrogen).

The Sagittarius arm has always been in the way, so if you cannot directly see the galactic centre, I highly doubt that the ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Hindu, Chinese and Mayan astronomers could see the Milky Way’s centre.

 

[Native]

Correct.

They found the location of the galactic centre. But only through filters for more powerful optical telescopes and because of the radio source from Sagittarius A, from radio telescopes.

And you do seem to understand that the Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy, with some spiral arms and spurs on the disk shape galaxy.

But what you don’t seem to understand since that while spiral arms twirled on that disk, it is not possible to see the centre if one of those spirals is between the centre and the Earth.

The Milky Way has 4 main spiral arms, and some spurs.

Our Solar System is situated on the Orion spur, and this spur is between the Perseus spiral arm and the Sagittarius spiral arm.

It is the Sagittarius arm that is between the earth and the central bulge of the Milky Way.

What you see outside with the naked eye, is actually Sagittarius arm, not the Milky Way’s centre.

Even if you do own an optical telescope, you still wouldn’t see the centre, because the dust are thick enough to block your view of the centre.

The light glow come from stars illuminating the interstellar gas, by ionising the gas, while the interstellar dust blocking other part of ionised gas.

The band of glowing light is not from the galactic centre but from the Sagittarius arm, and like I said, the stars illuminating the gas. This is like when you view any nebula.

The nebulae consisted of interstellar dust and gas. The gas are mainly of hydrogen, as well as helium, and trace elements of other gases (eg carbon, oxygen, nitrogen).

The Sagittarius arm has always been in the way, so if you cannot directly see the galactic centre, I highly doubt that the ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Hindu, Chinese and Mayan astronomers could see the Milky Way’s centre.

So you are back again? Just that you know: I´ve reported you for the 4 latest personal insults.

There is nothing new to me in what you are posting here. Not even your statements over what our ancestors could see or not.

I told you earlier that of course our ancestors couldn´t see Sagittarius A, but no matter what: They DID notice a central light area in the Milky Way center, galactic arms or not.

Do we agree that the Sun/Solar System wasn´t the first to be formatted in the Milky Way galaxy?

 

[gnostic]

Do we agree that the Sun/Solar System wasn´t the first to be formatted in the Milky Way galaxy?

Astronomically and scientifically, I never claimed that the Solar System exist first or before the Milky Way, so that’s you using strawman.

Mythologically, the ancient Egyptians can tell any story, they like, and none of them are considered science or factual.

I have always maintained that myths are stories, and a very interesting stories, but they are not facts, not science, not even history.

I think that myths are just myths, science is totally different and unrelated to myths.

You are the one who keep asserting myths are real, and more knowledgeable than science, not me.

You are the one who tried to mix science and myths, not me.

And are the one who don’t understand either of them.

Btw, I didn’t insult you...I see no insults in that post you have just quoted. All I did was explain to you, why you (and ancient Egyptian storytellers) cannot possibly directly see the Milky Way’s galactic centre, with the naked eye.

But you still refused to understand.

 

[Native]

Astronomically and scientifically, I never claimed that the Solar System exist first or before the Milky Way, so that’s you using strawman.

If so, this is your own strawman. I just asked you a question, that´s all.

You didn´t even understood my question:
Do we agree that the Sun/Solar System wasn´t the first to be formatted in the Milky Way galaxy?!

And are the one who don’t understand either of them.

There you go again! What kind of a poor argumentative statement is this? It is a DIRECT INSULT to state that I dont know anything about this or that!

1. There is NO FINAL conclusions in modern cosmology! Your background for judging alternative thinking persons has no firm grounds but lots of assumptions and uncertainties! Just because you´ve read lots of largely unproven theories and believe in these, you have NO RIGHT to say that I am wrong, just for thinking outside the boxes.

2 It´s even worse regarding your statements about me knowing nothing about mythology since you yourself takes mythology for "nothing but myths" and thus admit that you don´t know anything of any astronomical or cosmological contents in the myths!

Put yourself together and respect your fellow debaters - Or just leave this thread and topic.

 

[Native]

You are the one who tried to mix science and myths, not me.
And are the one who don’t understand either of them.

I´ve earlier said about the 4 fundamental forces that I consider the 3 strongest electromagnetic forces as 1 - and that I refute "gravity" to be a fundamental force since this is embedded in the 1.

(I´ve had this conviction for a long time BEFORE I read the following when investigating this topic yesterday)

It turns up that "quantum_gravity tries to do just that:

Loop quantum gravity - Wikipedia
Loop quantum gravity (LQG) is a theory of quantum gravity, merging quantum mechanics and general relativity, making it a possible candidate for a theory of everything. Its goal is to unify gravity in a common theoretical framework with the other three fundamental forces of nature, beginning with relativity and adding quantum features.

Still, "Gnostic" and other debaters frequently states: "He does not understand"

 

[Native]

It doesn´t seem that Polymath have the time or interest in commenting on "Quantum Matters", but in the meantime I´ll comment on a possible quantum theory of the Universe and a possible TOE.

The Quantum Cosmology have several problems on the attempt to include everything in the Universe.

"Quantum cosmology is the attempt in theoretical physics to develop a quantum theory of the Universe. This approach attempts to answer open questions of classical physical cosmology, particularly those related to the first phases of the universe.

The classical cosmology is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity (GTR or simply GR). It describes the evolution of the universe very well, as long as you do not approach the Big Bang. It is the gravitational singularity and the Planck time where relativity theory fails to provide what must be demanded of a final theory of space and time. Therefore, a theory is needed that integrates relativity theory and quantum theory.[1] Such an approach is attempted for instance with the loop quantum gravity, the string theory and the causal set theory.[2]

Read also Quantum Mechanics
------------
Newtons gravitational thoughts of celestial motion does not comply to larger scales in galaxies.

Einsteins thoughts of gravity and curved space-time is insufficient and speculative. All motions in space goes naturally in rotations, circles and circuits.

The Standard Modes ideas of what goes on in galaxies have to be revised as a circuitive motion governed by electromagnetic forces with both attractive and repulsive qualities. This circuitive perception will close the speculations of singularities and "black holes".

I simply suggest to take the highly theoretic speculative problems out of the equation and take a new natural, simple and cyclical approach to cosmology:

1. "Particle/mass gravity" should be taken out of such a theory
2. Einsteins "space-time" and "rubber sheet gravity" concepts too.
3. The Big Bang theory too.

#1: Gravity is an embedded quality in the electromagnetism and so is repulsive forces.
#2: "Time" should be defined as "objects in motion".
#3: A linear Big Bang idea is contradictive to the circuital laws and motions of electromagnetism which is the basis in Quantum matters.

Universe means 1 and everything changes eternally between formation, dissolution and re-formation. All natural basic gases and elements in the Periodic Table is eternal in this cyclical formation process.

Remember K.I.S.S. and Occams Razor.

There surely are lots of other arguments, but these 3 are IMO the basic hindrances for a Quantum Theory and a possible TOE

 

[Native]

Big Bang Devils Advocates . . .
Scientific anomalies are very entertaining indeed and an important tool in order to get a theory right.

The Great Attractor is an apparent gravitational anomaly in intergalactic space at the center of the local Laniakea Supercluster, in which the Milky Way is located, in the so-called Zone of Avoidance that is notoriously difficult to observe in visible wavelengths due to the obscuring effects of our own galactic plane.[1] This anomaly suggests a localized concentration of mass thousands of times more massive than the Milky Way.

The Shapley Supercluster or Shapley Concentration (SCl 124) is the largest concentration of galaxies in our nearby universe that forms a gravitationally interacting unit, thereby pulling itself together instead of expanding with the universe. It appears as a striking overdensity in the distribution of galaxies in the constellation of Centaurus. It is 650 million light years away (z=0.046).
--------------------
So a local attraction all of a sudden apparently overcome the overall idea of an expanding Universe!? "It appears as a striking overdensity . . ".

"Overdensity"? So a direct contradiction of the Big Bang expansion is just "an overdensity"? (Well, then an extra strong "dark matter" is needed in this location, I guess).

Besides this obvious contradiction of Big Bang, the uneven distribution of galaxies in the observable Universe is in itself also a kind of contradiction of the Big Bang idea.

And the worst embedded contradiction is of course the sudden added extra velocity in the assumed expanding Universe - which obviously must derive from a false measuring method of distances in the Universe.

Just get rid of this unnatural idea of "Big Bang" where everything started from a "singularity of nothing".

It´s a little better when adding the idea of a "Cosmic Inflation" and a "Big Crunch", which both suggests and points forward to the natural conclusion, "The Cyclic Universe", which indeed fits the thousands of years old empiric world perception of our ancestors.