Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Polymath257]

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

Yes, that is good. So they were NOT aware of Sagittarius A*, for example. They made their myths from the limited information they had.

 

[Regiomontanus]

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

Yep, I agree

 

[Native]

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?

STRAWMENS en masse

Compare your strawmens here with my explanations above of Re NOT being the Sun and then you´ll find out that Re = Then central light of creation in Milky Way center.

 

[Polymath257]

STRAWMENS en masse

Compare your strawmens here with my explanations above of Re NOT being the Sun and then you´ll find out that Re = Then central light of creation in Milky Way center.

Which they were not able to see. This is a *myth*, not the reality. If *all* you are wanting to argue is the origin and nature of the myth, modern astronomy is irrelevant. Since I have no interest at all in the myth, but want to know the reality, whether the ancient Egyptians identified Ra with the Sun (the usual interpretation) or some aspect of the *visible* Milky Way or a squashed toad is irrelevant to me.

But get your astronomy right.

 

[Native]

Yes, that is good. So they were NOT aware of Sagittarius A*, for example. They made their myths from the limited information they had.

More strawmens No they were just aware of a "Fiery Light" of creation in the center of our galaxy.

Apropos "informations": Are you aware that humans can get direct and unlimited informations of cosmos? This is ALSO why our ancestors knew lots more than modern cosmology. They didn´t spend their time reading books and nosing in telescopes but just listening intuitively to the forces of creation.

 

[Polymath257]

More strawmens No they were just aware of a "Fiery Light" of creation in the center of our galaxy.

Apropos "informations": Are you aware that humans can get direct and unlimited informations of cosmos? This is ALSO why our ancestors knew lots more than modern cosmology. They didn´t spend their time reading books and nosing in telescopes but just listening intuitively to the forces of creation.

No, they cannot get unlimited information about the cosmos directly. Our eyes are very limited in what they can see. Our ancestors were very limited in their understanding of the cosmos. That is because they couldn't see most of what is out there. Typically, they saw the 'universe' as quite small (by our standards), with a dome on top of (or surrounding) the Earth on which the stars were pasted and the planets moved.

They certainly had NO knowledge of the center of our galaxy. They *did* have knowledge of what they could see: a band stretching across the sky with some parts denser than others.

As for 'listening to the forces of creation', let's just say that doesn't work so well.

 

[Native]

Which they were not able to see. This is a *myth*, not the reality. If *all* you are wanting to argue is the origin and nature of the myth, modern astronomy is irrelevant. Since I have no interest at all in the myth, but want to know the reality, whether the ancient Egyptians identified Ra with the Sun (the usual interpretation) or some aspect of the *visible* Milky Way or a squashed toad is irrelevant to me.

What are you doing in this Religious Forums if you don´t take religious contexts and myths seriously?

 

[Polymath257]

What are you doing in this Religious Forums if you don´t take religious contexts and myths seriously?

I do take them seriously: as a way to understand the minds of those who believed in them. I just don't take them as true.

I am interested in how religious beliefs have changed over time: the history of ideas. In this particular case, though, I think the standard interpretation is more likely to be correct.

 

[Native]

No, they cannot get unlimited information about the cosmos directly. Our eyes are very limited in what they can see. Our ancestors were very limited in their understanding of the cosmos. That is because they couldn't see most of what is out there. Typically, they saw the 'universe' as quite small (by our standards), with a dome on top of (or surrounding) the Earth on which the stars were pasted and the planets moved.

OK, you aren´t aware of this. You and your physical eyes Humans have spiritual senses as well.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, you aren´t aware of this. You and your physical eyes Humans have spiritual senses as well.

Well, people make that claim. I have yet to see any evidence of such. Let alone any evidence that their 'spiritual perceptions' correspond with reality.

 

[Native]

I do take them seriously: as a way to understand the minds of those who believed in them. I just don't take them as true.
I am interested in how religious beliefs have changed over time: the history of ideas. In this particular case, though, I think the standard interpretation is more likely to be correct.

Well fine. So now you have your great chance to learn something here in this thread

 

[Native]

Well, people make that claim. I have yet to see any evidence of such. Let alone any evidence that their 'spiritual perceptions' correspond with reality.

Obviously you then have missed the religious/biblical part where persons had direct contact to the creative forces.

 

[Polymath257]

Well fine. So now you have your great chance to learn something here in this thread

And maybe the issue is that you don't explain yourself as well as I would expect. Your words suggest that you are claiming the ancient Egyptians were aware of Sagittarius A*, the center of our galaxy. Your words seem to say that gravity isn't an operative force in the cosmos. If that isn't your claim, then maybe your exposition needs some cleaning up.

As for whether Ra is or is not identified with the sun, the evidence I have seen from plaques, etc suggests that your interpretation is wrong. Since this particular Egyptian myth didn't affect later thinking so much, it seems a very specialized issue to me.

 

[Polymath257]

Obviously you then have missed the religious/biblical part where persons had direct contact to the creative forces.

No, I did not miss it. I know of the claims. But I don't see them as accurate.

 

[Native]

And maybe the issue is that you don't explain yourself as well as I would expect. Your words suggest that you are claiming the ancient Egyptians were aware of Sagittarius A*, the center of our galaxy. Your words seem to say that gravity isn't an operative force in the cosmos. If that isn't your claim, then maybe your exposition needs some cleaning up.

As for the language itself, I admit my restricted English and this may play a role here. Yes, those are my claims, except from that these claims are not mine alone, but a collective and thousands of years old knowledge of our ancestors. Which can be somewhat difficult to understand by looking through modern telescopes.

I don´t deny an attractive force in the Universe, I just take "gravity" as an embedded quality in the rest of the fundamental forces, which I also claim is just ONE.

 

[Native]

No, I did not miss it. I know of the claims. But I don't see them as accurate.

I´m aware that an understanding of ancient revelations can be hard to grasp since they were told in a cultural language in a former cultural period.
STILL, you now have a chance for understanding these in a modern way here in this thread Don´t you blow it, but be open minded

 

[Polymath257]

I´m aware that an understanding of ancient revelations can be hard to grasp since they were told in a cultural language in a former cultural period.
STILL, you now have a chance for understanding these in a modern way here in this thread Don´t you blow it, but be open minded

I don't find ancient myths to be hard to grasp. I just find them false. They are stories, often good stories, but not descriptive of reality.

 

[Polymath257]

As for the language itself, I admit my restricted English and this may play a role here. Yes, those are my claims, except from that these claims are not mine alone, but a collective and thousands of years old knowledge of our ancestors. Which can be somewhat difficult to understand by looking through modern telescopes.

Well, it is your *interpretation* that these were the beliefs on some ancestors. But that interpretation seems to be at the very least, questionable. And, given the realities of astronomy, the ancient Egyptians could NOT have been aware of Sagittarius A*. That would simply be impossible.

I don´t deny an attractive force in the Universe, I just take "gravity" as an embedded quality in the rest of the fundamental forces, which I also claim is just ONE.

Well, it is *one* of the fundamental forces. There is a *hope* that there can be a unified description of all those fundamental forces. But, as yet, we don't have such a description that can be tested. At the energies we typically see in the universe, though, even a unified description would be not as useful as separate descriptions. Gravity is, in essence, a curvature of spacetime. It is ultimately geometrical.The other forces are forces *within* spacetime. It is possible they also, are geometrical in some senses.

 

[Native]

Well, it is *one* of the fundamental forces. There is a *hope* that there can be a unified description of all those fundamental forces. But, as yet, we don't have such a description that can be tested. At the energies we typically see in the universe, though, even a unified description would be not as useful as separate descriptions. Gravity is, in essence, a curvature of spacetime. It is ultimately geometrical.The other forces are forces *within* spacetime. It is possible they also, are geometrical in some senses.

If this is a general and conventional understanding and description of the problems of unifying the fundamental forces, I´t NEVER will happen.

Honestly, "gravity as a curvature of space-time"? This doesn´t explain anything but an observation of "celestial motion". It doesn´t describe the factual and dynamic forces of motion at all. "Gravity" is NOT understood at all and it is directly contradicted by the observation of the "abnormal rotation curve" in galaxies. The mix of Newtonian and Einsteinian "gravity" are a cosmological useless hybrid in all accounts.

You:
"At the energies we typically see in the universe, though, even a unified description would be not as useful as separate descriptions".

i´ve said earlier:
1. Just ban and bin the gravity ideas. It is embedded in the other 3 forces.
2. Take the 3 other fundamental forces as a Theory of Everything, where electromagnetic forces and polarities works everywhere, but with different charges and in different basic gaseous and metallic stages.

And THERE you have it: The TOE.

 

[Polymath257]

If this is a general and conventional understanding and description of the problems of unifying the fundamental forces, I´t NEVER will happen.

Honestly, "gravity as a curvature of space-time"? This doesn´t explain anything but an observation of "celestial motion". It doesn´t describe the factual and dynamic forces of motion at all. "Gravity" is NOT understood at all and it is directly contradicted by the observation of the "abnormal rotation curve" in galaxies. The mix of Newtonian and Einsteinian "gravity" is a cosmological useless ******* in all accounts.

Except that it *does* agree with observations *if* you include everything we know exists. The dynamics of gravity *are* described in general relativity, but you also have to understand that 'dynamics' involves time, which is part of the geometry being described. The 'abnormal rotation curve' issue has been resolved by the inclusion of dark matter (which is also evidenced in several other ways, independently).

But, of course, nothing of this has anything to do with the beliefs of ancient Egyptians.

You:
"At the energies we typically see in the universe, though, even a unified description would be not as useful as separate descriptions".

i´ve said earlier:
1. Just ban and bin the gravity ideas. It is embedded in the other 3 forces.
2. Take the 3 other fundamental forces as a Theory of Everything, where electromagnetic forces and polarities works everywhere, but with different charges and in different basic gaseous and metallic stages.

And THERE you have it: The TOE.

Except that isn't even the begining of a unified description. It is, at best, a vague hope. And it ignores that we already know E&M works everywhere--just not as you seem to think it does. And, of course, you give absolutely no details that allow for testability. That makes it pure nonsense.