Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Native]

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.

You poor thing I just can say You imagine myths to be easy to understand, but you don´t have the imagination in order to understand the validity

 

[Native]

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).

Nope! It SEEMINGLY agree with your calculations and the way you ASSUME and calculate cosmos as such. Which is wrong because you only calculate everything by the weakest force of all, "gravity" and thus you need lots af matter in the Universe in stead of counting on the stronger forces which de facto shows the correct values and the amount of gas and matter al over the place.

Don´t give me that "dark matter" crutch. If galaxies were thought as a function of electromagnetism, the magnetic field would in itself explain how atoms and stars flows in a motion of attraction and repulsion. And the latter is the actual case in our Milky Way.

You don´t need any "dark this or that" in the Universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope! It SEEMINGLY agree with your calculations and the way you ASSUME and calculate cosmos as such. Which is wrong because you only calculate everything by the weakest force of all, "gravity" and thus you need lots af matter in the Universe in stead of counting on the stronger forces which de facto sows the correct values al over the place.

Don´t give me that "dark matter" crutch. If galaxies were thought as a function of electromagnetism, the magnetic field would in itself explain how atoms and stars flows in a motion of attraction and repulsion. And the latter is the actual case in our Milky Way.

You don´t need any "dark this or that" in the Universe.

You don't think that was attempted? It was. It doesn't work. E&M simply isn't a domenant force in the cosmos. It is important in many situations, of course. But it isn't what holds galaxies together. It doesn't help with the rotation 'anomalies'. It doesn't help with observed lensing phenomena.

And, if calculating everything by gravity actually *works*, that is a *only* standard that is relevant. The only long range force other than gravity is electromagnetism and it simply doesn't do what you seem to think it does. And, yes, we understand E&M quite well--better than any of the other forces.

Sorry, gravity isn't simply a 'function of electromagnetism'. We can measure E&M fields. They simply don't describe why the moon orbits the Earth, nor why the Earth orbits the Sun. Nor why the Sun orbits the galaxy.

I very much suspect you don't know even the basics of electromagnetism, or else you simply wouldn't say some of the things you do.

 

[Polymath257]

You poor thing I just can say You imagine myths to be easy to understand, but you don´t have the imagination in order to understand the validity

Well, myths do have layers, of course. They were designed with that in mind: that's how people manage to get meaning out of them.

Validity? Nope. Comfort? Sure.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope! It SEEMINGLY agree with your calculations and the way you ASSUME and calculate cosmos as such.

You don't seem to grasp that the calculations we do can *predict* observations to be made in the future. And when those observations are actually done, the previous calculations agree with the observations. So, it isn't simply consistency in our calculations (a rather trivial hurdle). it is actually being able to make predictions and have them come out correctly that is the real hurdle. And our understanding of gravity does that.

 

[gnostic]

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.

No, Native.

All constructive discussion have been hopeless since the "Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate" thread, where we have already covered most of that ground.

There are not just one myth of Re or one of Hathor, Native. And you are relying on just one version of the myth.

And, Native.

I have not study comparative mythology. Heck, I haven’t even study classical studies or classical literature. I had no teachers on these subjects.

I just read a lot of literature, translated of the sources. I have tried to understand the original contexts as they are in the contents, and tried to put as little as possible, modern contexts into ancient contents.

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

The problem with “astronomical implications” is that their observations are very limited, and mostly represented symbolic and tied to their belief in the supernatural.

So whatever knowledge they may have, doesn’t really explain what the moon, sun, stars, planets and the Milky Way are.

Sure, they have observed stars, sun, moon and planets, and they may have succeeded in tracking their movements in the sky, in relation to the seasons. But still didn’t know what they were really observing.

The problem here, is you putting far more credits to their understanding of astronomy, far more than they deserve. That’s when you start using anachronism, by claiming things they could not have possibly known.

 

[gnostic]

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.

That is where you are wrong.

No one can see directly the entire Milky Way.

What we see in the night sky, without any technological aids (eg no binoculars, telescopes, radio telescopes, filters, etc), are only what can be observed.

And that’s only a tiny fraction of the Milky Way.

Even with telescopes, optical and radio, and all the bells and whistles, we still don’t know the exact amount of stars in our Milky Way. Modern astronomers, to date, can only give rough estimates of 100 to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way.

When you go out at night, in a dark, and clear cloudless and moonless night, you are only seeing a very small portion of the sky, whether you are living in the northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere, or near the equator.

My point is that you will only able to see and count any where between 2000 stars and at best, 25/2600 stars.

The total amount of stars that can be observed (again, naked eye) is less than 9200 stars in total.

Most of the stars that we actually see are found in the Orion spur, and a very tiny portion of the Sagittarius arm and a tiny portion of the Perseus arm.

Of all the nebulae in the Milky Way, we could see with the naked eye, we can only count two, the Orion Nebula and the Carina Nebula. Without the telescopes we only see these two. But the funny thing is that they are not closest nebulae to earth. The closest is the Helix Nebula, but we cannot see it with the naked eye. That probably because Helix is a planetary nebula, while the other two are emission nebulae, so less luminous.

Between the time of Galileo and before Edwin Hubble viewed Andromeda with the Hooker Telescope in 1919, every astronomers assumed that Andromeda was a nebula, not a spiral galaxy, about 2 million light years away. But even before Galileo’s telescope, every astronomers before him thought Andromeda was a star.

My point is that the ancient people could far less than those with telescopes, and definitely far less than the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

[Native]

Except that it *does* agree with observations *if* you include everything we know exists

Yes, it seemingly agrees - if you add a dark substance which isn´t found, right? And of course it fits your calculations since these are made to your observations and assumed laws of gravity.

Just think of it: The conventional laws of celestial motion in our Solar System are imposed on the motions in galaxies where the orbital motions are different. If you add "dark matter" to the galactic surroundings, you automatically add "dark matter" to the Solar System as well and there you have a cosmic dilemma which is unsolvable by the standing theories.

he 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.

"Time" is just "objects in motion" and motions in cosmos are rotations and orbital motions, In our galaxy, "time" even goes in circuital motions.

The 'abnormal rotation curve' issue has been resolved by the inclusion of dark matter (which is also evidenced in several other ways, independently).

I know that standard cosmology adds dark matter and energy all over the places, but your evidences are all based on circumstantial observations which isn´t understood. (That´s why dark this and that are added in the first place) Of course everything fits together when you have gravity as a basic model and have invented a metaphysic substance which can be added everywhere in order to "explain" the observed anomalies.

Again, just think of it: By working excludingly with the "one track gravity" model and its weakest force, you exclude the rest of the stronger forces and their electromagnetic motions and explanational powers. Quite another world of motion and cosmic explanations shows up when you adapt a general idea of electromagnetic formation and government everywhere.

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

Oh yes, of course this have everything to do with ancient cultural myths of creation.

Except that isn't even the beginning 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.

I know that E&M is used. I just suggest it to be used all over the places instead of gravity which causes mentally chaos instead of cosmos.

The enormous electric outbursts in galaxies are evidence for the E&M on the cosmic scale and the very E&M explains perfectly what is going on in galaxies, whether they actually are in an overall attractive or repulsive stage, which is the case with our Milky Way.

Of course E&M is testable all over the place. Just ban and bin "gravity" and insert E&M forces and motions and then you have a TOE. This should be easy for all matemathisIans and geometristis.

That makes it pure nonsense.

Of course it does for conventional thinkers - until they change their minds from "gravity" to real forces of creation.

 

[Native]

No, Native.
All constructive discussion have been hopeless since the "Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate" thread, where we have already covered most of that ground.

If, and since, this topic deals with BOTH ancient and modern perceptions of creation/formation, it is important to see "both sides of the coin" and not just one. I´m trying my very best to do both sides here.

There are not just one myth of Re or one of Hathor, Native. And you are relying on just one version of the myth.

No I am not. I´m just working with ONE of the numerous cultural myths of creation and trying to investigate how this fits to the ideas of modern science - all according to the topic here.

If you don´t believe in this ONE example, how many examples do you then need before you begin to believe that the Milky Way is embedded in ancient myths?

The problem with “astronomical implications” is that their observations are very limited, and mostly represented symbolic and tied to their belief in the supernatural.

How can you say this when ancient myths of creation evidently speaks of the creation in our Milky Way galaxy? And yes, our ancestors had natural experiences which modern humans call super-natural because modern humans don´t understand and accept spiritual experiences.

The problem here, is you putting far more credits to their understanding of astronomy, far more than they deserve. That’s when you start using anachronism, by claiming things they could not have possibly known.

And you obviously put far less credits to our ancestors than they deserve - and far more credits to modern science that it deserves.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
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.

That is where you are wrong.

No one can see directly the entire Milky Way.

What we see in the night sky, without any technological aids (eg no binoculars, telescopes, radio telescopes, filters, etc), are only what can be observed.

And that’s only a tiny fraction of the Milky Way.

Even with telescopes, optical and radio, and all the bells and whistles, we still don’t know the exact amount of stars in our Milky Way. Modern astronomers, to date, can only give rough estimates of 100 to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way.

When you go out at night, in a dark, and clear cloudless and moonless night, you are only seeing a very small portion of the sky, whether you are living in the northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere, or near the equator.

My point is that you will only able to see and count any where between 2000 stars and at best, 25/2600 stars.

The total amount of stars that can be observed (again, naked eye) is less than 9200 stars in total.

Most of the stars that we actually see are found in the Orion spur, and a very tiny portion of the Sagittarius arm and a tiny portion of the Perseus arm.

Of all the nebulae in the Milky Way, we could see with the naked eye, we can only count two, the Orion Nebula and the Carina Nebula. Without the telescopes we only see these two. But the funny thing is that they are not closest nebulae to earth. The closest is the Helix Nebula, but we cannot see it with the naked eye. That probably because Helix is a planetary nebula, while the other two are emission nebulae, so less luminous.

Between the time of Galileo and before Edwin Hubble viewed Andromeda with the Hooker Telescope in 1919, every astronomers assumed that Andromeda was a nebula, not a spiral galaxy, about 2 million light years away. But even before Galileo’s telescope, every astronomers before him thought Andromeda was a star.
My point is that the ancient people could far less than those with telescopes, and definitely far less than the 20th and 21st centuries.

You nearly got me confused with this post For a moment, I thought that one former reply of yours have "jumped the queue" and moved in front of this thread.

Of course I (basically) accept your scientific arguments, but these arguments are taken out of the mythical context/contents and separated from the cultural conditions and symbolic language and a much clearer night Sky for some 3.200 BC Egyptian story of creation, to which we tries to connect here.

When you go out at night, in a dark, and clear cloudless and moonless night, you are only seeing a very small portion of the sky, whether you are living in the northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere, or near the equator.

No matter what, the Milky Way band is observable in the darker season of the year and it fills the entire Sky on your position of observation.

My point is that the ancient people could far less than those with telescopes, and definitely far less than the 20th and 21st centuries.

And my point is: That modern science is sort of very wise on details and much less wise when it comes to the overall understanding of the creation. In fact much lesser compared to ancient cultures.

 

[gnostic]

Since I have contributed to the previous thread (Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate) and this one, I get the picture from you that the ancient Egyptians know everything, don’t make mistakes and their knowledge far superior than modern science.

That seemed to be the claims you are making.

But the fact remains, nothing in the myths explain anything about the Milky Way, the Solar System or anything else.

All references to the Milky Way and the sun are not source of knowledge, but just a symbolic representations of the deities.

That you want to make it more than that, just showed that you want the superstition being real. Which is absurd and no better than pseudoscience claims made by the Young Earth creationists.

 

[Native]

Since I have contributed to the previous thread (Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate) and this one, I get the picture from you that the ancient Egyptians know everything, don’t make mistakes and their knowledge far superior than modern science.
That seemed to be the claims you are making.

Yes, you got that correct.

But the fact remains, nothing in the myths explain anything about the Milky Way, the Solar System or anything else.

All references to the Milky Way and the sun are not source of knowledge, but just a symbolic representations of the deities.

First sentence: You could say just the same about modern cosmology which, in their huge common confusion, for instants have invented several ideas of how everything assumingly is created or formed. There ARE NO facts in modern formation cosmology, just different theories.

Second sentence: How do you know, as in KNOW? How can you deside what is facts in myths as long as you take these as mumbo jumbo and hearsayings? You even don´t perform the slightest efforts in order to investigate DIRECT astronomical mentioned texts in the ancient myths. How can one know if one don´t investigate?

That you want to make it more than that, just showed that you want the superstition being real. Which is absurd and no better than pseudoscience claims made by the Young Earth creationists.

This sentence just shows your own lack of understanding because you don´t take factual astronomical informations in myths seriously.

Your reference to "Young Earth creationists" has nothing to do with my approach to ancient stories of creation. Besides this, you cannot differ between "superstitious ideas in modern cosmological science" and your lack of mytho-cosmological understanding.

 

[Native]

But the fact remains, nothing in the myths explain anything about the Milky Way, the Solar System or anything else.

So you in fact reject and refute your own previous comments on "Re/Ra representing the Sun"?

Get your points and arguments together

 

[ecco]

No matter what, the Milky Way band is observable in the darker season of the year...

The Milky Way is equally observable at 3:00 AM in any season of the year (excluding the extreme summer months at the poles where there is always some sunlight)

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, it seemingly agrees - if you add a dark substance which isn´t found, right? And of course it fits your calculations since these are made to your observations and assumed laws of gravity.

Just think of it: The conventional laws of celestial motion in our Solar System are imposed on the motions in galaxies where the orbital motions are different. If you add "dark matter" to the galactic surroundings, you automatically add "dark matter" to the Solar System as well and there you have a cosmic dilemma which is unsolvable by the standing theories.

"Time" is just "objects in motion" and motions in cosmos are rotations and orbital motions, In our galaxy, "time" even goes in circuital motions.

I know that standard cosmology adds dark matter and energy all over the places, but your evidences are all based on circumstantial observations which isn´t understood. (That´s why dark this and that are added in the first place) Of course everything fits together when you have gravity as a basic model and have invented a metaphysic substance which can be added everywhere in order to "explain" the observed anomalies.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is more than one type of anomaly. The rotation curves of galaxies is only one. There is also the dynamics of galactic clusters, lensing of light going past large galaxies, and the record of the background radiation. The remarkable thing is that the amount of dark matter to fix each is the same. If it was simply 'put it in as an ad hoc fix', the amount to fix one problem would be different than the amount to fix other problems. Plus, as you point out, there would be the issue of solar system dynamics, which are well understood. So tat guarantees the amount of dark matter can't be *too* large.

And guess what? All the different scenarios, based on very different lines of evidence, are consistent.

Again, just think of it: By working excludingly with the "one track gravity" model and its weakest force, you exclude the rest of the stronger forces and their electromagnetic motions and explanational powers. Quite another world of motion and cosmic explanations shows up when you adapt a general idea of electromagnetic formation and government everywhere.

Not at all. For example, we know that there are incredibly strong E&M fields around neutron stars. We know that there are much smaller ones in various plasmas in gas clouds, etc. We know that E&M forces are important in the internal dynamics of stars..

But they *aren't* important for keeping planets in their orbit, nor in keeping the sun in our galaxy. They simply don't explain what we actually see.

Oh yes, of course this have everything to do with ancient cultural myths of creation.

I know that E&M is used. I just suggest it to be used all over the places instead of gravity which causes mentally chaos instead of cosmos.

You want it to be used where it isn't relevant and gives wildly wrong answers.

The enormous electric outbursts in galaxies are evidence for the E&M on the cosmic scale and the very E&M explains perfectly what is going on in galaxies, whether they actually are in an overall attractive or repulsive stage, which is the case with our Milky Way.

Yes, there are strong E&M fields around neutron stars and black holes. Yes, there are strong E&M fields around active galactic nuclei (which are usually black holes). NOBODY denies that. But E&M doesn't explain galactic dynamics. Many physicists would love it if it did. It would resolve some long standing problems. But it simply doens't work.

Of course E&M is testable all over the place. Just ban and bin "gravity" and insert E&M forces and motions and then you have a TOE. This should be easy for all matemathisIans and geometristis.

Of course it does for conventional thinkers - until they change their minds from "gravity" to real forces of creation.

OK, what is the amount of electromagnetic force between the sun and the earth? In detail, how does that keep the earth in orbit? How does that explain both the overall elliptical nature of that orbit *and* the deviations from a purely elliptical orbit?

Give detailed calculations, showing the predicted stregths of the electric and magnetic fields necessary and the distribution of charges required to produce those fields. Then show those charges actually exist.

 

[Native]

The Milky Way is equally observable at 3:00 AM in any season of the year (excluding the extreme summer months at the poles where there is always some sunlight)

Thanks, this was exactly what I meant And this is even described in mythical explanations in myths of the leaving and returning deities, thus also including deities of the star constellations.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
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, they did NOT see the *entire* Milky Way galaxy. They saw the very small piece of it which is visible from the Earth. That is the band you see across the sky. But the *vast* majority of the Milky Way galaxy just isn't visible from the Earth.

Now, if you want to claim they observed the entire *band* of light across our sky, that would at least make some sense (it would still not be correct, but it would at least make some sense). But they *never* observed the part of the Milky Way close to the center. They never observed the parts of the Milky Way in the other spiral arms. They never observed the parts of the Milky Way on the other side from the center.

And no, their knowledge of astronomy was quite poor compared to what we know now.

You nearly got me confused with this post For a moment, I thought that one former reply of yours have "jumped the queue" and moved in front of this thread.

Of course I (basically) accept your scientific arguments, but these arguments are taken out of the mythical context/contents and separated from the cultural conditions and symbolic language and a much clearer night Sky for some 3.200 BC Egyptian story of creation, to which we tries to connect here.

No matter what, the Milky Way band is observable in the darker season of the year and it fills the entire Sky on your position of observation.

And my point is: That modern science is sort of very wise on details and much less wise when it comes to the overall understanding of the creation. In fact much lesser compared to ancient cultures.

Saying they saw the entire band is sort of like claiming they saw the whole surface of the moon when they could only see half of it. Yes,they saw what was observable from Earth with the naked eye. But that is an incredibly small part of the whole galaxy. Yes, even with a clear night sky in a dark place, etc. And e we have lost a LOT because of light pollution, etc. But that isn't relevant to the accuracy of their knowledge.

Sorry, but 'mythical context' is the same as cultural context. And the culture simply didn't have the knowledge of astronomy that we do today. In fact, their whole concept of the universe would fit in its entirety inside our solar system, dome and all.

 

[Native]

What you don't seem to understand is that there is more than one type of anomaly. The rotation curves of galaxies is only one. There is also the dynamics of galactic clusters, lensing of light going past large galaxies, and the record of the background radiation.

I´m fully aware of the types and amounts of cosmological anomalies since these flourish all over in the cosmological theories and observations. Lensing of light past large galaxies is simple light refraktions in the galactic dust. And the background radiation is just intergalactic hydrogen and helium which always have been there.

The remarkable thing is that the amount of dark matter to fix each is the same. If it was simply 'put it in as an ad hoc fix', the amount to fix one problem would be different than the amount to fix other problems.

This argument doesn´t hold cosmic waters. Of course different amount of "dark matter" is added to each different anomaly, all depending of the factual observations. In this sense it is de facto ad hoc additions all over the places

Plus, as you point out, there would be the issue of solar system dynamics, which are well understood. So tat guarantees the amount of dark matter can't be *too* large.

Very convenient indeed! But this don´t explain the different (assumed gravitational) orbital motions in the Solar System and in the galaxy. So try again.

Not at all. For example, we know that there are incredibly strong E&M fields around neutron stars. We know that there are much smaller ones in various plasmas in gas clouds, etc. We know that E&M forces are important in the internal dynamics of stars.

Fine just use this everywhere in cosmos.

But they (E&M) *aren't* important for keeping planets in their orbit, nor in keeping the sun in our galaxy. They simply don't explain what we actually see.

Not so fine You see in fact the Earth moving away from the Sun and the Moon away from the Earth and you even observe stars in our galaxy moving away from the center. All these things point against the gravitational model - and just forget "the frame-dragging crutch". Your gravity doesn´t hold anything together or in motion at all.

You want it to be used where it isn't relevant and gives wildly wrong answers.

How do you know that? If you like to deal with mathematics, you just can insert E&M energies and motions instead of matter=weight=gravity forces in for instant the galactic realms and starry motion. This cannot possibly be more wrong than the gravitational assumptions.

OK, what is the amount of electromagnetic force between the sun and the earth? In detail, how does that keep the earth in orbit? How does that explain both the overall elliptical nature of that orbit *and* the deviations from a purely elliptical orbit?

Wrong premises. You assume "gravity" to hold the Earth in orbit around the Sun and then you ask for E&M explanations between the Sun and Earth, where this isn´t directly relevant since all rotations and orbital motions in our Solar System derives from the central galactic momentum and formation.
And it is in the galactic center where the E&M is very strong at work with the plasma clouds of gas and dust which become stars etc. Regarding the elliptic orbital motion around the Sun this is ta long time expanding result of the Solar System once leaving the galactic center.

Give detailed calculations, showing the predicted stregths of the electric and magnetic fields necessary and the distribution of charges required to produce those fields. Then show those charges actually exist.

Again the wrong premises as replied above. You should instead focus on the galactic E&M formation and motion combined with the Solar System distance from the center.

It is not my business doing math. My natural advances is all based on intuitive and logical matters in order to inspire my self and my surroundings.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
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, they did NOT see the *entire* Milky Way galaxy. They saw the very small piece of it which is visible from the Earth. That is the band you see across the sky. But the *vast* majority of the Milky Way galaxy just isn't visible from the Earth.

You just could quote my text correctly.

Now, if you want to claim they observed the entire *band* of light across our sky, that would at least make some sense (it would still not be correct, but it would at least make some sense). But they *never* observed the part of the Milky Way close to the center. They never observed the parts of the Milky Way in the other spiral arms. They never observed the parts of the Milky Way on the other side from the center.
And no, their knowledge of astronomy was quite poor compared to what we know now.

I understand your points of view here - especially on the background of your mythical ignorance.

And e we have lost a LOT because of light pollution, etc. But that isn't relevant to the accuracy of their knowledge.

You only can state this because you don´t recognize how precise descriptions our ancestors had of the Milky Way contours and how much this pollution disturbs telescopes today.

And the culture simply didn't have the knowledge of astronomy that we do today. In fact, their whole concept of the universe would fit in its entirety inside our solar system, dome and all.

Agreed that the knowledge of our ancestors dealt specifically with everything in our Milky Way galaxy and NOT the entire Universe. But then again, modern science is itself highly confused regarding this area with all its BB-theories and anomalies.

Besides all this, you cannot judge anything mythical as long as you don´t work with the myths at all.

 

[Polymath257]

I´m fully aware of the types and amounts of cosmological anomalies since these flourish all over in the cosmological theories and observations. Lensing of light past large galaxies is simple light refraktions in the galactic dust.

Except if there were that much dist, we would see more attenuation of the light. Instead, the light comes through just fine, but is distorted. You don't think that was considered? I mean, we know very well how much gas and dust there is both inside of galaxies and intergalactic space.

And the background radiation is just intergalactic hydrogen and helium which always have been there.

Except that doesn't explain the near perfect uniformity of that background radiation (one part in 100,000) across the sky from places that cannot have been interacting since the beginning. Also, it ignores the fact that it doesn't have the spectral lines of either hydrogen or helium. Furthermore, we *can* detect hydrogen lines from distant galaxies and they don't match up with the background radiation. Nor, does this hypothesis explain the temperature of that background radiation, nor the variances in that temperature.

Sorry, that is a HUGE fail. Once again, don't you think that would be one of the first things considered? Well, it was and it doesn't fit the data.

This argument doesn´t hold cosmic waters. Of course different amount of "dark matter" is added to each different anomaly, all depending of the factual observations. In this sense it is de facto ad hoc additions all over the places

No, you don't seem to get it. Suppose I need to have a certain amount of dark matter to explain the rotation curve. Well, that amount would also affect the lensing. And there is no reason to think the amount required for the lensing and the amount required for the rotation would match up if it was simply 'explain away the anomaly'. But they do, in fact, match up. We can use the amounts fromone to predict the effects in the other and the results match up. That shows there is actually something there.

Very convenient indeed! But this don´t explain the different (assumed gravitational) orbital motions in the Solar System and in the galaxy. So try again.

Huh? You mean the orbital motion *within* the solar system vs the orbital motion *around* the galaxy? Why would you expect the two to be related at all? If anything, I would be suspicious if they were linked.

Fine just use this everywhere in cosmos.

Not so fine You see in fact the Earth moving away from the Sun and the Moon away from the Earth and you even observe stars in our galaxy moving away from the center. All these things point against the gravitational model - and just forget "the frame-dragging crutch". Your gravity doesn´t hold anything together or in motion at all.

What???? No, we do NOT see the sun and the moon moving away from the Earth. The moon *orbits* the Earth and the Earth *orbits* the sun. There are very small tidal forces, but hte typical motion isn't away, it is around.

How do you know that? If you like to deal with mathematics, you just can insert E&M energies and motions instead of matter=weight=gravity forces in for instant the galactic realms and starry motion. This cannot possibly be more wrong than the gravitational assumptions.

No, you cannot just do that. Inserting charges (so that there would be E&M fields) would affect other observations in ways we don't see. We *can* detect magnetic fields by seeing the light produced by synchrotron radiation from charges in the fields. Well, in the vast majority of locations, no such radiation is found. You see, your assumption that it is all E&M has *other* consequences that gravity doesn't have and those consequences are not seen. That shows it isn't E&M that is the primary force operative.

Wrong premises. You assume "gravity" to hold the Earth in orbit around the Sun and then you ask for E&M explanations between the Sun and Earth, where this isn´t directly relevant since all rotations and orbital motions in our Solar System derives from the central galactic momentum and formation.

Nonsense on all sides. Assume we have two models: one with gravity being the operative force and one with E&M being the operative force. There are very clear ways to distinguish those two models. We let the data decide. And the conclusion is clear: E&M just isn't the force that is relevant.

And no, the rotation of the galaxy has nothing to do with the rotation of the solar system. The scales are way, way, way different.

And it is in the galactic center where the E&M is very strong at work with the plasma clouds of gas and dust which become stars etc. Regarding the elliptic orbital motion around the Sun this is ta long time expanding result of the Solar System once leaving the galactic center.

Again the wrong premises as replied above. You should instead focus on the galactic E&M formation and motion combined with the Solar System distance from the center.

Why? The model is nonsense from the get-go. It is simply garbage.

It is not my business doing math. My natural advances is all based on intuitive and logical matters in order to inspire my self and my surroundings.

The hallmark of a crank is not being able to do the math, disagreeing with all the experts, making up nonsense theories, and not admitting when they are wrong because they think their view is 'intuitive'.

The way to avoid that designation is to present mathematical details of a testable theory that explains the evidence to, say, 3 decimal places, and makes predictions for new observations that can be verified through observation.

Good luck.