Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Native]

You really don't like to being wrong, do you?
So if anyone disagree with you, it is called nit-picking.
What do you are doing, when you say to me Re is not a sun god or Hathor is not sun goddess? Not nit-picking?
Isn't that double standard?
If you see the image of the goddess with Shu and Geb, then it should be clear to everyone that the goddess is Nut, not Hathor.
Nut, unlike Hathor is the granddaughter of Re, not daughter of Re. So no, Native, it is not nit-picking.

Your comparative skills in cultural mythology isn´t what it should be in a fine discussion. If you cannot grasp that Nut and Hathor represent the SAME astronomical images in different cultures, all hopes of a constructive discussion is hopeless.

 

[Native]

What do you are doing, when you say to me Re is not a sun god or Hathor is not sun goddess? Not nit-picking?

You cannot be the judge of this since you dont take myths for anything else as myths, without having astronomical or cosmological implications.

 

[Native]

What a load of craps, Native.
I have no problem with following contents and contexts of myths.

I haven´t said you´re having problems of following the contents and contexts of myths.

I´m saying that you don´t understand the astronomical and cosmological contents and contexts in ancient mythology. Even when a text clearly speaks of a Milky Way connection, you dont care at all with this astronomical connection and then you goes in total denial mode.

I also disagree with your interpretations of science. Again, nothing more, nothing less.

Fine by me if you don´t care of being critical in this speculative cosmological department.

 

[Native]

Nut, unlike Hathor is the granddaughter of Re, not daughter of Re. So no, Native, it is not nit-picking.

Ha ha ha! They BOTH are a result of Re/Ra and I don´t care about the historical/cultural scholarly nitt-pickings at all
And as both Nut and Hathor resembles the Milky Way, the logics of Re/Ra = the Sun, is just stupid.
The Sun can of course NEVER be "a father" or a "grandfather" = the cause of the entire Milky Way.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Nonsense! Our ancestors observed the ENTIRE Milky Way as a grey/white band on the night Sky, but you can´t recognize this and it´s astronomical implications, because you don´t take myths seriously.

Hello. Forgive my intrusion here but as a (mostly retired) astronomer I can't help myself . I just want to say that technically we can, with just the naked eye, see only a small part of our galaxy. We can see the major 'outline' of it (the band you mention), yes. But in terms of the whole thing that is just the 'frosting on the cake'. Nit picking here maybe, sorry.

/returns to lurking mode

 

[Polymath257]

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

I´ve seen an animation of this center and how stars are moving around this center.

The direct observation of Sagittarius A and orbiting stars is a direct and blatant contradiction of "heavy/massive black holes/objects" assumption in galactic centers.

One one hand "heavy black holes" where "everything disappears, even light" is assumed, but on the other hand, the very precise center, Sagittarius A is observed having several stars orbiting the center in our galaxy.

Conclusion: There are no black holes in galaxies. And this is even confirmed by the galactic motion of stars, which indicates an outgoing motion in our galaxy.

And why do you think there is a contradiction? Things still can orbit black holes. In fact, if the sun became a black hole, the orbit of the planets wouldn't change at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and and this glow is what our ancestors observed as the Milky Way River.

Which means they didn't see the center.

 

[Polymath257]

Because of the uneven distribution and especially of a local area where gravity, "created a the Big Bang" suddenly works extra heavy according to the assumptions. And of course because the motion goes against the overall expanding motions.

You:
"Or a non-zero value for the cosmological constant"??? This is a pure mathematical speculation and you know it.

But it is speculation that fits the facts. As opposed to *your* speculation that doesn't.

 

[Polymath257]

How often shall I have to tell you that you cannot compare our ancestral observations with mechanical instruments? You cannot judge or interpret myths via any instruments without taking the human sences into your equations.

I know perfectly well that the outlook of the galactic center on the southern hemisphere have a black line in the middle of the galaxy, called the "black rift". But on both upper and lower sides of this line, a luminous bulged area can be observed and together, this is how our ancestors symbolized the Milky Way center and it´s central "Holy Mound".

We 8do* take human senses into consideration. The point is that telescopes allow us to see *more*. Everything you can see without them can be seen with them *plus* more.

You don't see the center of the galaxy without somesort of enhancement: and that means some sort of telescope.

Now, if you have really good eyes, you can see a couple of other galaxies: the Andromeda spiral is the easiest. But it is quite small in the sky. M33 is *possible* in a very dark sky if you know where to look. But you can't see the center of our own galaxy.

I really don't care what the myths say. They are stories made up by people who had limited knowledge about astronomy to give meaning to their lives. And there is NO way they could have seen the center of our galaxy.

As for your claims about gravity. Well, I can say they aren't in line with observations and the facts.

 

[gnostic]

Hello. Forgive my intrusion here but as a (mostly retired) astronomer I can't help myself . I just want to say that technically we can, with just the naked eye, see only a small part of our galaxy. We can see the major 'outline' of it (the band you mention), yes. But in terms of the whole thing that is just the 'frosting on the cake'. Nit picking here maybe, sorry.

/returns to lurking mode

Since you are the astronomer, here. Then can I ask you a few questions.

Is it not true, that anyone look at the sky (naked eye) would only see this “small part” of not only the Milky Way, but also only a “small part” of the Sagittarius spiral?

Is it not true that no one, past or present, cannot look directly at the galactic centre, because of the objects (eg dust, gas, stars) spiral arm blocking our view of the centre?

 

[Regiomontanus]

And why do you think there is a contradiction? Things still can orbit black holes. In fact, if the sun became a black hole, the orbit of the planets wouldn't change at all.

Indeed.

Many images over several years, showing stars orbiting our supermassive black hole Sgr A* :

 

[Polymath257]

Nonsense! Our ancestors observed the ENTIRE Milky Way as a grey/white band on the night Sky, but you can´t recognize this and it´s astronomical implications, because you don´t take myths seriously.

No, that band you see across the sky is NOT the entire Milky Way. Yes, that band in impressive. Yes, that band has lead to a lot of myths and legends.

No, you cannot see the center of the galaxy from the earth. Yes, gravity is the dominant force operating here.

As for the particular myths, few people care and those who do seem to uniformly disagree with you.

That puts you as, well, an outlier in your speculations.

 

[Polymath257]

Since you are the astronomer, here. Then can I ask you a few questions.

Is it not true, that anyone look at the sky (naked eye) would only see this “small part” of not only the Milky Way, but also only a “small part” of the Sagittarius spiral?

Is it not true that no one, past or present, cannot look directly at the galactic centre, because of the objects (eg dust, gas, stars) spiral arm blocking our view of the centre?

Yes, both of those statements are true.

 

[Polymath257]

Indeed.

Many images over several years, showing stars orbiting our supermassive black hole Sgr A* :

Yes, I am aware. And a recent case where we were able to watch a black hole eat a star (not in our galaxy, though):

Black Hole Caught in Act of Swallowing Star

I'd point out that Native doesn't think gravity operates in space....once we get outside the atmosphere. It's all E&M and the other basic forces (!).

 

[Native]

Hello. Forgive my intrusion here but as a (mostly retired) astronomer I can't help myself . I just want to say that technically we can, with just the naked eye, see only a small part of our galaxy. We can see the major 'outline' of it (the band you mention), yes. But in terms of the whole thing that is just the 'frosting on the cake'. Nit picking here maybe, sorry. /returns to lurking mode

You´re Welcome

Exactly: " We can see the major 'outline' of it (the band you mention), yes". And so could our ancestors and possibly even clearer without any modern pollution in the atmosphere.

In Norse Mythology of the creation, we have three main world dimension. We have Midgaard in where humans live. We have Asgaard where the celestial gods, godesses and animals live. An we have Utgaard where huge giants human and animals lives, in the Norse Mythology, called "Joetuns".

The "Midgaard Serpent" is said to encircle Midgaard. This myth can of course be interpreted horizontally as "a snake surrounding a local village", which indeed demands a really large snake, and interpreted vertically as a scenario on the night Sky over the Earth covering the entire Sky,

This Midgaard Serpent resembles the grey/white band of the Milky Way and our ancestors imagined this band to continue under the horizons, down in the "Underworld". So our ancestors did observe the Milky Way band over the entire night Sky and they made all kinds of mythical tellings and symbolism out of this sight/observation and as this Milky Way band was/is the largest structure in the night Sky, our ancestors - all over the world - gave giant-descriptions with human-like and animal beings and even of anthropomorphic "beings" and symbols.

The white and observable contours of the Milky Way on the northern hemisphere, resembling a prime god in many cultures.

Again: Ancient Myths of Creation are not "just myths", but astronomical descriptions of real observations in the Sky

 

[Regiomontanus]

Since you are the astronomer, here. Then can I ask you a few questions.

Is it not true, that anyone look at the sky (naked eye) would only see this “small part” of not only the Milky Way, but also only a “small part” of the Sagittarius spiral?

Is it not true that no one, past or present, cannot look directly at the galactic centre, because of the objects (eg dust, gas, stars) spiral arm blocking our view of the centre?

Hello. Right, when you look up at night you can only see a small fraction of our galaxy. The band of stars (our galaxy) is just a small part, mainly of the arm we embedded in (Orion arm).

To see very far into the disc of our galaxy (like to the center, see movie above) we need to use, for example, radio telescopes. At such wavelengths much of the obscuring debris is fairly transparent.

 

[Native]

Yes, both of those statements are true.

So what?
And both of those statement are indifferent as an argument in myths, as long as they are excluded from the mythical and ancestral way of looking at their world.

 

[Polymath257]

So what?
And both of those statement are indifferent as an argument in myths, as long as they are excluded from the mythical and ancestral way of looking at their world.

So you are giving up your claims that they saw the center of the galaxy? and that there isn't a black hole at that center?

You agree that the myths were made from the observations possible without a telescope, which means that most of the Milky Way was not visible?

 

[Native]

Hello. Right, when you look up at night you can only see a small fraction of our galaxy. The band of stars (our galaxy) is just a small part, mainly of the arm we embedded inin (Orion arm).
To see very far into the disc of our galaxy (like to the center, see movie above) we need to use, for example, radio telescopes. At such wavelengths much of the obscuring debris is fairly transparent.

Fine by me - But our ancestors just saw what the saw and made their mytho-astronomical and mytho-cosmological descriptions of what they saw.

 

[Regiomontanus]

You´re Welcome

Exactly: " We can see the major 'outline' of it (the band you mention), yes". And so could our ancestors and possibly even clearer without any modern pollution in the atmosphere.

In Norse Mythology of the creation, we have three main world dimension. We have Midgaard in where humans live. We have Asgaard where the celestial gods, godesses and animals live. An we have Utgaard where huge giants human and animals lives, in the Norse Mythology, called "Joetuns".

The "Midgaard Serpent" is said to encircle Midgaard. This myth can of course be interpreted horizontally as "a snake surrounding a local village", which indeed demands a really large snake, and interpreted vertically as a scenario on the night Sky over the Earth covering the entire Sky,

This Midgaard Serpent resembles the grey/white band of the Milky Way and our ancestors imagined this band to continue under the horizons, down in the "Underworld". So our ancestors did observe the Milky Way band over the entire night Sky and they made all kinds of mythical tellings and symbolism out of this sight/observation and as this Milky Way band was/is the largest structure in the night Sky, our ancestors - all over the world - gave giant-descriptions with human-like and animal beings and even of anthropomorphic "beings" and symbols.
View attachment 24293
The white and observable contours of the Milky Way on the northern hemisphere, resembling a prime god in many cultures.

Again: Ancient Myths of Creation are not "just myths", but astronomical descriptions of real observations in the Sky

Hello. Well, to your last statement in bold (again being picky ) I would say they are interpretations (of obviously naked eye) observations. So without our modern knowledge of what they were really seeing their imaginations (quite naturally) 'ran wild'.