Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[ecco]

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.

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.

Then what did you mean when you said "the Milky Way band is observable in the darker season of the year"? It is observable in any season.

 

[ecco]

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.

You just could quote my text correctly.

OK. I'll quote your text correctly.

No, Our ancestors could not have observed the ENTIRE Milky Way as a grey/white band on the night Sky.

When you say anyone, then or now, can observe the entire Milky Way in any way, shape, or form, you are demonstrating your ignorance of basic astronomy.

 

[Native]

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.

As you know i refute any beginning and this CMB observation is just eternal hydrogen plasma which simply is hijacked by the BB cosmologists to fit their assumed linear time scale.

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.

Even the faint electromagnetism in the (eternal) hydrogen plasma can have small fluctuations and these furthermore fluctuates because of the uneven distribution.

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.

The Solar System is of course linked to the Milky Way motion since the SS is an orbital part around the galactic center. STILL the orbital motions are different. You cannot solve this difference of motions both places with the same "dark matter".

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.

I was not talking of inserting charges, but just of using the electromagnetic laws in the galactic formation. if you imagine an electric current in the poles/holes, the perpendicular magnetic field creates the galactic disk itself and subsequently further star formations in the disk.

Of course E&M has other consequences that gravity doesn't have". Gravity is an assumed "one-way-track force" whereas the E&M force works in both directions and in a spherical patterns - which even fits to the galactic motions.

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.

I was suggesting to just use the E&M model and not the weak gravity.

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.

Of course the scales are way different! But there is of course a direct connection, both regarding the formation of our Solar System and subsequently also regarding the rotational and orbital motions in the Solar System. You cannot exclude this SS formation from the galactic formation.

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

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'.

"Garbage and crank"? Well maybe you just are afraid, or too indoctrinated, to try the E&M maths for yourself?

 

[Native]

OK. I'll quote your text correctly.
No, Our ancestors could not have observed the ENTIRE Milky Way as a grey/white band on the night Sky.
When you say anyone, then or now, can observe the entire Milky Way in any way, shape, or form, you are demonstrating your ignorance of basic astronomy.

Try to concentrate on the entire grey/white Milky Way BAND which logically is observable all around the Earth.

 

[Polymath257]

As you know i refute any beginning and this CMB observation is just eternal hydrogen plasma which simply is hijacked by the BB cosmologists to fit their assumed linear time scale.

Then why doesn't it have the spectrum of hydrogen?

Even the faint electromagnetism in the (eternal) hydrogen plasma can have small fluctuations and these furthermore fluctuates because of the uneven distribution.

Which doens't explain the smoothness of the distribution across the sky.

The Solar System is of course linked to the Milky Way motion since the SS is an orbital part around the galactic center. STILL the orbital motions are different. You cannot solve this difference of motions both places with the same "dark matter".

Yes, dark matter for rotation curves is consistent with what we observe in the solar system.

I was not talking of inserting charges, but just of using the electromagnetic laws in the galactic formation. if you imagine an electric current in the poles/holes, the perpendicular magnetic field creates the galactic disk itself and subsequently further star formations in the disk.

To produce electromagnetic fields requires charges. Electric currents *are* moving charges.

Of course E&M has other consequences that gravity doesn't have". Gravity is an assumed "one-way-track force" whereas the E&M force works in both directions and in a spherical patterns - which even fits to the galactic motions.

No, of course, it doesn't. Gravity is simply what happens between nay masses. That really isn't controversial or problematic.

I was suggesting to just use the E&M model and not the weak gravity.

yes, I understand the suggestion. It fails.

Of course the scales are way different! But there is of course a direct connection, both regarding the formation of our Solar System and subsequently also regarding the rotational and orbital motions in the Solar System. You cannot exclude this SS formation from the galactic formation.


"Garbage and crank"? Well maybe you just are afraid, or too indoctrinated, to try the E&M maths for yourself?

Have you? Do you even know what the Maxwell equations say?

 

[Polymath257]

Try to concentrate on the entire grey/white Milky Way BAND which logically is observable all around the Earth.

So what? That 'band' is the nearest stars, not anything close to the center of our galaxy. It is very, very far from being 'all of the Milky Way'.

 

[gnostic]

Try to concentrate on the entire grey/white Milky Way BAND which logically is observable all around the Earth.

The “band” as view (naked eye) from Earth is only a tiny fraction of the Milky Way that can be observed.

The band is not the entire Milky Way.

As I have already explained to you before, our solar system is located on the Orion spur or minor arm. And the Orion spur is located between two spiral arms:

1. the Sagittarius arm, is the inner arm that block our view of the galactic centre
2. the Perseus arm, is the outer arm.

The stars (Polaris, Sirius, Rigel, Betelgeuse, the three stars on Orion’s belt) and nebulae (Orion Nebula, Horsehead Nebula, Helix Nebula) are located on the local portion of the Orion spur.

What I mean by “local portion” is that they are located near or in close proximity of our sun. With the exceptions of the Helix Nebula and Horsehead Nebula, those other objects I have mentioned can be observed without telescope.

The local portion of the Sagittarius spiral, that we can see using the telescope, are some nebulae, like the Trifid Nebula, Lagoon Nebula, Omega Nebula, Eagle Nebula and Carina Nebula. Except for the last two nebulae that I have mentioned (Eagle and Carina), they are all located in our sky of the Sagittarius constellation.

What you do see at night, without the telescope or binoculars, are only local stars, planets and impenetrable cosmic dust from our arm (Orion spur) and a small part of the Sagittarius arm.

As you know, the Sagittarius A is located in the Sagittarius constellation too, but it isn’t visible to optical telescopes. It required radio telescope to detect radiowave of Sagittarius A. If Sagittarius A cannot be view naked eye, then so would be the Milky Way’s centre.

No one, past or present, can see the centre of the Milky Way. And no one can see the “entire Milky Way”. It is just not possible.

Most of the stars in the Milky Way aren’t visible to us (naked eye, meaning no binoculars and no telescopes).

Until you understand this, you have your head buried in the sand.

 

[Native]

It obvious is a tough up-hill task to get to a common agreement of what to do with the BB-problems in order to discuss which new fundamental force approach is necessary to unify the different theories of Universal formation.

I replied earlier that:
The Solar System is of course linked to the Milky Way motion since the SS is an orbital part around the galactic center. STILL the orbital motions are different. You cannot solve this difference of motions both places with the same "dark matter". (Of course, if you are a mathemagician, everything "works" fine)

Yes, dark matter for rotation curves is consistent with what we observe in the solar system.

I´m sure that this is what gravity cosmologists wish to believe, but you cannot solve and explain two different orbital motion patterns with the same dark matter crutch and in the same overall orbital motion. (Of course, if you are a dark matter mathemagician, everything "works" fine)

Besides this, what about finding and scientifically proving the dark metaphysical substance before calculating with this scientific nothingness? Every time gravity cosmologists are contradicted in their gravity motion theory, they just add "dark matter", no matter where (sic!) and everywhere gravity cosmologists are contradicted in their celestial and intergalactic motion theory, they just add "dark energy". And on the top of everything dark cosmologists assumes that a tiny Higgs Boson "gravity particle" gives weight to everything in the Universe. (Of course, if you are a dark matter mathemagician, everything "works" fine)

Operating with "dark this and that" is the darkest idea of all in the history of newer cosmological science. (Of course, if you are a dark matter mathemagician everything "works" fine)

Well well, modern cosmology will never solve the TOE without banning and binning Newtons and Einsteins ideas of "gravitational motion" and not before the appropriate fundamental electromagnetic force is included in everything.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Try to concentrate on the entire grey/white Milky Way BAND which logically is observable all around the Earth.

So what? That 'band' is the nearest stars, not anything close to the center of our galaxy. It is very, very far from being 'all of the Milky Way'.

Is a "band around the Earth" just the local part under zenith where you stand? Try to get the intellectual dots connected.

 

[Native]

The “band” as view (naked eye) from Earth is only a tiny fraction of the Milky Way that can be observed.
The band is not the entire Milky Way.

Read #329
I just consider the rest of your reply as copying and spamming the same content as you´ve done several times.
Besides this, you are confusing my mythical approach with the modern scientific approach.

 

[gnostic]

Read #329
I just consider the rest of your reply as copying and spamming the same content as you´ve done several times.
Besides this, you are confusing my mythical approach with the modern scientific approach.

Actually I am not confusing the approaches, since I do not consider them TO BE NOT THE SAME, nor do I think myths to be useful in term of understanding the Solar Sytem or the Milky Way.

The myths on astronomy and cosmology only provide superficial knowledge based on very limited observation, and wedded to mythological characters. So in essence, myths are unreliable, and quite often wrong.

But that's not really the problem here, Native. The problem is your absurd interpretations and your belief that the ancient astronomers were infallible.

Plus, your knowledge with modern astronomy and cosmology, and even basic physics, are equally faulty.

 

[Native]

But that's not really the problem here, Native. The problem is your absurd interpretations and your belief that the ancient astronomers were infallible.

Plus, your knowledge with modern astronomy and cosmology, and even basic physics, are equally faulty.

Why do you think modern cosmology contains three different models of universal formation, i.e. Big Bangs?

This is logically and obviously because scientists really dont know what in fact is going on and there are NO COMMON conventions at all on the overall perspective of formation in the Universe.

And you choose to believe in these overall cosmological confusions and use these confusions and inconsistencies as arguments against someone who tries to find a common knowledge which comply with both ancient and modern knowledge.

Can´t you see how pathetic you are in this matter? On one hand you are confused and reject the ancient astronomical knowledge (in spite you discuss mythical astronomical matters here) and on the other hand you adopt the modern confusion without even being critical of it´s dogmatism.

If you cannot contribute with CONSTRUCTIVE replies regarding BOTH areas in this topic, just go away.

 

[ecco]

OK. I'll quote your text correctly.

No, Our ancestors could not have observed the ENTIRE Milky Way as a grey/white band on the night Sky.

When you say anyone, then or now, can observe the entire Milky Way in any way, shape, or form, you are demonstrating your ignorance of basic astronomy.

Try to concentrate on the entire grey/white Milky Way BAND which logically is observable all around the Earth.

Considering the earth rotates and revolves it is not surprising that parts of the Milky Way are "observable all around the Earth".

However, that is not what you stated originally (emphasis in the original):

Nonsense! Our ancestors observed the ENTIRE Milky Way as a grey/white band on the night Sky,

Note your emphasis on the word "ENTIRE". That's what our discussion has been about.

You claimed people could see the "ENTIRE" Milky Way when in fact only a relatively small portion of the Milky Way can be seen. All your subsequent ducking and dodging is just a lame to evade.

 

[Native]

Considering the earth rotates and revolves it is not surprising that parts of the Milky Way are "observable all around the Earth".

Correct. And if you consider that humans all over the world can observe the Milky Way band, there is NO reasons to be critical, but nitt-picking reasons towards comments.

 

[Polymath257]

Correct. And if you consider that humans all over the world can observe the Milky Way band, there is NO reasons to be critical, but nitt-picking reasons towards comments.

Seeing the entire *band* that is visible from Earth is NOT the same as seeing the entire Milky Way galaxy. That band is only a small part of the entire galaxy.

The ancient Egyptians were NOT infallible. In fact, they got quite a number of things quite wrong. They had an excuse: they had limited access to information because of their lack of technology.

You, however, do not have that excuse. Instead, you demonstrate repeatedly how little basic physics you comprehend. You show how little of modern astronomy you comprehend. You demonstrate how little you understand about gravity and even E&M.

And then you want to combined your poor understanding of astronomy with your rather, shall we say, unusual interpretations of Egyptian mythology. Combine that with the delusion that the Egyptians were infallible and you get a bizarre mess. But, it is clear you are wedded to this and will refuse instruction on basic physics, astronomy, history, or pretty much any subject.

Too bad.

 

[Native]

The ancient Egyptians were NOT infallible. In fact, they got quite a number of things quite wrong. They had an excuse: they had limited access to information because of their lack of technology.

I don´t consider you to be a witness of truth in the mythical department since you refute it all together without having the slightest mythical insight. Do your mythical research before you comment on this.

You, however, do not have that excuse. Instead, you demonstrate repeatedly how little basic physics you comprehend. You show how little of modern astronomy you comprehend. You demonstrate how little you understand about gravity and even E&M.

Contrary to you, I´ve done my mythical research and my research on cosmological anomalies, whereas you just believe in all kinds of gravitational dark this and that ghosts and mathemagicial rabbits which is needed in order to get cosmos to fit to your theories instead of the other way around.

And then you want to combined your poor understanding of astronomy with your rather, shall we say, unusual interpretations of Egyptian mythology. Combine that with the delusion that the Egyptians were infallible and you get a bizarre mess. But, it is clear you are wedded to this and will refuse instruction on basic physics, astronomy, history, or pretty much any subject.

You can get back in this matter if - ever - modern cosmologists can agree on a concrete TOE which proves or disproves the standing theories.

Until then: Just be humble and downplay your intellectual besserwissen attitudes and be open for all kinds of ideas and theories, even the mythical ones.

 

[ecco]

Correct. And if you consider that humans all over the world can observe the Milky Way band, there is NO reasons to be critical, but nitt-picking reasons towards comments.

"nitt-picking"?

Considering the earth rotates and revolves it is not surprising that parts of the Milky Way are "observable all around the Earth".

However, that is not what you stated originally (emphasis in the original):
Note your emphasis on the word "ENTIRE". That's what our discussion has been about.

You claimed people could see the "ENTIRE" Milky Way when in fact only a relatively small portion of the Milky Way can be seen. All your subsequent ducking and dodging is just a lame to evade.

"nitt-picking"?

Your post # 260...

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.

If you had said "humans all over the world can observe the Milky Way band" there would have been no reason for people to respond. However, you commented that ancients could see the ENTIRE Milky Way. You rambled on about the "astronomical implications" of this fact. You criticized others for not recognizing this fact and claimed that it was because they "don´t take myths seriously".

In subsequent posts you alternately defended your position and tried to back away from it. The latest backing away in the form of criticizing me for "nitt-picking".

You hold BS concepts, make BS comments and then get all flustered and defensive when you get called out. That is not surprising. It is typical of people who try to promote nonsensical woo.

 

[Native]

You hold BS concepts, make BS comments and then get all flustered and defensive when you get called out. That is not surprising. It is typical of people who try to promote nonsensical woo.

I don´t think "be-es" comments is appropriate in a discussion, but of course this is a common comment for those who don´t understand the overall topic in this thread and thus ends up in all kinds of pure nitt-pickings on details instead of focusing on the context and contents in this topic.

 

[gnostic]

Why do you think modern cosmology contains three different models of universal formation, i.e. Big Bangs?

This is logically and obviously because scientists really dont know what in fact is going on and there are NO COMMON conventions at all on the overall perspective of formation in the Universe.

And you choose to believe in these overall cosmological confusions and use these confusions and inconsistencies as arguments against someone who tries to find a common knowledge which comply with both ancient and modern knowledge.

Can´t you see how pathetic you are in this matter? On one hand you are confused and reject the ancient knowledge and on the other hand you adopt the modern confusion without even being critical of it´s dogmatic.

If you cannot contribute with CONSTRUCTIVE replies regarding BOTH areas in this topic, just go away.

No, Native.

What’s really pathetic is that you continued to make claims that you cannot back, and your continuous belief and claims that the ancient myths exceeded knowledge of all modern science.

And worse still, it is your completely false claim. That you have repeatedly claimed that the ancient Egyptians could see the “entire” Milky Way.

Worse still. That you, yourself, can see the “entire” Milky Way without any telescope or other devices, is not only false, but ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

It is not nitpicking, Native. You are simply wrong, but you not only refused to admit, you won’t and cannot learn from your mistakes.

It is not just me, pointing out this to you, but ecco and Polymath257, and even Regiomontanus have said basically the same thing to you, why you can’t directly see the whole Milky Way, and why you cannot see the centre of the galaxy.

All you are doing, is giving us the run around, deflecting the truth and ignoring facts.

And btw. I have not brought up the Big Bang. All I did was focus on your misrepresentation of astronomical facts about the Milky Way, not the entire universe.

 

[ecco]

I don´t think "be-es" comments is appropriate in a discussion, but of course this is a common comment for those who don´t understand the overall topic in this thread and thus ends up in all kinds of pure nitt-pickings on details instead of focusing on the context and contents in this topic.

It is entirely appropriate to call nonsensical views that have no basis in reality BS and woo.

It is also entirely appropriate to call out people who make ludicrous claims and then try vague backtracking and diversionary tactics.

It is also entirely appropriate to call out people who try to use "You just don't understand"; "You are just ignorant of the truth", "I am right because I say so" BS arguments.