Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[Native]

Well, one of the rules is that you have to use known laws of physics.

--------
That is just one of my points: The Standard Cosmology have caused rules and laws which is based on gravitational assumptions from the very beginning - and ever since the first laws were invented, lots of more assumptions is added every time the laws were contradicted.

No more cosmic talk from my part for now. Thanks for our conversation.

 

[Polymath257]

--------
That is just one of my points: The Standard Cosmology have caused rules and laws which is based on gravitational assumptions from the very beginning - and ever since the first laws were invented, lots of more assumptions is added every time the laws were contradicted.

The laws for gravity were 'invented' to explain the motions of the planets. They worked incredibly well. In fact, we can still use Newton's laws to send probes to Mars and other planets.

At the level of the solar system,our understanding of gravity is very well tested. We can also test it in other places by watching double stars and, now, planets around other stars.

Are you seriously denying that gravity exists on a cosmic scale?

 

[Native]

The laws for gravity were 'invented' to explain the motions of the planets. They worked incredibly well. In fact, we can still use Newton's laws to send probes to Mars and other planets.

-----------
The planetary motions were empirically known long before Newton. He just added the assumption that apples falls to the ground because of attraction i.e. "gravity". And then he assumed that the Sun holds all planets in their orbits where these in fact moves away from the Sun. And later on standard cosmology scientists assumed that this is because "gravitational frame dragging action on distance" between the celestial objects.

You don´t have to know anything of the Newtonian assumptions of gravity in order to launch spacecrafts. The planetary motions are known and just take the atmospheric pressure and add some extra energy to drive the cargo to where you wish.

Standard Cosmology is one huge assumption and it was quite understable that Einstein came up with other ideas. Unfortunately his new ideas were not that better and full of mathematical calculations (as singularities which don´t exists) instead of knowledge based on natural philosophy as such.

No more replies to you for now. Don´t bother to answer this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

--------
From - Amun - Wikipedia
After the rebellion of Thebes against the Hyksos and with the rule of Ahmose I (16th century BC), Amun acquired national importance, expressed in his fusion with the Sun god, Ra, as Amun-Ra or Amun-Re.


---------
You STILL have to compare the Egyptian deities from different cultural periods in order to get the myth correct.

And my point is not which deity is mentioned in which cultural period, but which light Amun-Ra represents and it is NOT the Sun, but the central light in the Milky Way.
----------------------
By focusing on the cultural periods and the historic namings, you seemingly forgot the entire point here:

I replied earlier:


What do you get from this?

I can see from the old post of yours that you quoted that you do not understand the universe. There are no "outer parts". Where did you get that idea from?

 

[exchemist]

-----------
The planetary motions were empirically known long before Newton. He just added the assumption that apples falls to the ground because of attraction i.e. "gravity". And then he assumed that the Sun holds all planets in their orbits where these in fact moves away from the Sun. And later on standard cosmology scientists assumed that this is because "gravitational frame dragging action on distance" between the celestial objects.

You don´t have to know anything of the Newtonian assumptions of gravity in order to launch spacecrafts. The planetary motions are known and just take the atmospheric pressure and add some extra energy to drive the cargo to where you wish.

Standard Cosmology is one huge assumption and it was quite understable that Einstein came up with other ideas. Unfortunately his new ideas were not that better and full of mathematical calculations (as singularities which don´t exists) instead of knowledge based on natural philosophy as such.

No more replies to you for now. Don´t bother to answer this.

This cannot pass unchallenged, as it is utter rubbish.

Of course you need to use Newton's Law of Gravitation to get spacecraft where you want them to go. It is perversely idiotic to maintain otherwise. "Just take the atmospheric pressure and add some extra energy" is like saying that to be a company CEO all you have to do is wear a suit and sit behind a desk.

How much energy? And expended to accelerate in what direction? And applied at what point(s) in the trajectory? And compensating for the loss in mass as is fuel burnt, how, exactly? And so on.

 

[Native]

I can see from the old post of yours that you quoted that you do not understand the universe. There are no "outer parts". Where did you get that idea from?

------------
Where did you get such nonsense from? You must have confused me with another person.

 

[Polymath257]

-----------
The planetary motions were empirically known long before Newton. He just added the assumption that apples falls to the ground because of attraction i.e. "gravity". And then he assumed that the Sun holds all planets in their orbits where these in fact moves away from the Sun. And later on standard cosmology scientists assumed that this is because "gravitational frame dragging action on distance" between the celestial objects.

You don´t have to know anything of the Newtonian assumptions of gravity in order to launch spacecrafts. The planetary motions are known and just take the atmospheric pressure and add some extra energy to drive the cargo to where you wish.

Standard Cosmology is one huge assumption and it was quite understable that Einstein came up with other ideas. Unfortunately his new ideas were not that better and full of mathematical calculations (as singularities which don´t exists) instead of knowledge based on natural philosophy as such.

No more replies to you for now. Don´t bother to answer this.

Well, it is clear you are uninterested in actual scientific facts and reasoning and prefer myths and twisting them to suit yourself. No more replies required.

 

[Subduction Zone]

------------
Where did you get such nonsense from? You must have confused me with another person.

You are somewhat correct. Too early in the morning and I misread your post. This was what I was referring to:

"If my claims of a central formation in our Milky Way and this going outwards in the Milky Way arms, it is logical that our Solar System wasn´t the first to be formed. Otherwise, it would be located in the outermost areas of the galaxy, correct? So in fact the Milky Way center was of course formed before the Solar System."

There is no reason to assume that the oldest parts of the galaxy are the outer arms. Yes, we know that our Solar System is younger than the Milky Way as a whole, but your reasoning is faulty. For example the immensely large black hole at the center of the galaxy almost certainly formed early and has only grown since then.

It appears that you are a believe of the Electric Universe and that idea is in the are of being "not even wrong" scientifically. It is a rather worthless belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it is clear you are uninterested in actual scientific facts and reasoning and prefer myths and twisting them to suit yourself. No more replies required.

I knew that a long time ago before he went off on this Electric Universe rant. Reinterpretation of tales of holy books is done by both Muslims and Christians. His approach is to do this wholesale.

 

[Polymath257]

I knew that a long time ago before he went off on this Electric Universe rant. Reinterpretation of tales of holy books is done by both Muslims and Christians. His approach is to do this wholesale.

I could hope.

 

[Native]

Well, it is clear you are uninterested in actual scientific facts and reasoning

-----------
I would call your "facts" for assumptive and unproven science fictions

 

[gnostic]

You are somewhat correct. Too early in the morning and I misread your post. This was what I was referring to:

"If my claims of a central formation in our Milky Way and this going outwards in the Milky Way arms, it is logical that our Solar System wasn´t the first to be formed. Otherwise, it would be located in the outermost areas of the galaxy, correct? So in fact the Milky Way center was of course formed before the Solar System."

There is no reason to assume that the oldest parts of the galaxy are the outer arms. Yes, we know that our Solar System is younger than the Milky Way as a whole, but your reasoning is faulty. For example the immensely large black hole at the center of the galaxy almost certainly formed early and has only grown since then.

It appears that you are a believe of the Electric Universe and that idea is in the are of being "not even wrong" scientifically. It is a rather worthless belief.

In his earlier posts, he keep stating that Solar System was formed within the centre of the Milky Way, and then the Solar System move outward along the arm to its current position, due to the age.

If that was true, then all younger stars than our Sun, should be closer to the galactic centre, and all stars older than our Sun should be further out than our solar system.

This is flawed concept of his, doesn’t take into account the locality of Solar System with some of the closest neighboring stars, nearest to us that is.

Alpha Centauri, for instance, is a triple star system (A, B & C, with A and B being the main companion stars), is about 4.37 light years from us. Star A (Alpha Centauri A) is about as close to the Sun’s age of 4.4 billion years, while B is about 5.5 billion years.

But then we have a binary system of Sirius, the brightest star in our night sky, is about 8.37 light years from our Sun. But the 2 stars are no older than 250 million years old at the most.

Clearly Sirius is a much younger star than the Sun and Alpha Centauri. And yet Sirius is in close proximity to much older star systems. Sirius should be closer to the centre, not a mere less than 9 light years away from the Sun. And according to astronomers, Sirius is moving very gradually closer to our solar system, but will move away 60,000 years from now.

And if Native's concept of the Milky Way, shouldn’t Sirius be a lot closer to MW’s centre than to our Sun?

The thing is, that the age of the stars, have nothing to do with their positions in the Milky Way.

Some stars closest to centre are young and some are old. Some stars further away from our solar system are young and others are old.

Our galaxy is under 13 billion years old. Some of the more ancient stars, more often white dwarfs, are littered all over the Milky Way, some close and some further away from the centre, give us indication that aging stars don’t move to the outer rims, as Native have been conjecturing since he started conjecturing about the Solar System in relationship to the Milky Way’s centre.

But apparently Native don’t understand this. He preferred to invent his own deluded myth about the universe.

 

[gnostic]

--------
From - Amun - Wikipedia
After the rebellion of Thebes against the Hyksos and with the rule of Ahmose I (16th century BC), Amun acquired national importance, expressed in his fusion with the Sun god, Ra, as Amun-Ra or Amun-Re.


---------
You STILL have to compare the Egyptian deities from different cultural periods in order to get the myth correct.

And my point is not which deity is mentioned in which cultural period, but which light Amun-Ra represents and it is NOT the Sun, but the central light in the Milky Way.
----------------------
By focusing on the cultural periods and the historic namings, you seemingly forgot the entire point here:

I replied earlier:


What do you get from this?

That’s just based on your assumptions about Amun-Ra being the light of the Milky Way.

There are no doubt that by the 4th dynasty took over Atum’s original role of the sun god of Heliopolis (3rd dynasty), where Amun only play minor role as just 8 gods of the Ogdoad.

At that time there were no connections between Re and Amun.

Your quote from Wiki actually prove my point that Amun and Re only started to coalesce as one god Amun-Re in the 18th dynasty, which is about a thousand years later than Atum and Re.

Plus, as I had stated in my earlier post, the 5th and 6th dynasty Pyramid Texts connect those pyramids (3rd to 6th dynasties) to Re and Atum with the afterlife for the kings on Re’s Solar Barque. In about half dozen of those tombs at Saqqara, Amun is only mentioned once in the Pyramid Texts.

Although we know that the cult of the Ogdoad at Hermopolis were ancient, there are very little in terms of writing and artworks regarding to Amun, who only became prominent in Thebes during the 11th dynasty (1st intermediate period). But it is at the 18th dynasty to Ptolemaic dynasty that Amun rose above all others.

You say to ignore cultural periods, but I believed that you are ignoring the earlier periods, where the pyramids are connected to the sun god Re.

Why else in most of the construction of pyramids in the 3rd millennium BCE, that pyramids, starting with the 1st pyramid (belonging to Djoser of the 3rd dynasty), have constructed the mortuary temples facing east, to the horizon of the rising sun?

Having it facing East has nothing to do with the Milky Way.

 

[Native]

In his earlier posts, he keep stating that Solar System was formed within the centre of the Milky Way, and then the Solar System move outward along the arm to its current position, due to the age.

If that was true, then all younger stars than our Sun, should be closer to the galactic centre, and all stars older than our Sun should be further out than our solar system.

This is flawed concept of his, doesn’t take into account the locality of Solar System with some of the closest neighboring stars, nearest to us that is.

-------------------
For some 35 years, I´ve claimed the formation of stars in the Milky Way to have formed within the galactic center and wandered out in the galactic surroundings. I initially got this perception from reading the numerous cultural Stories of Creation and compared these to the findings of modern cosmology.

Of course I’ve met much opposition towards my understanding from both Comparative Mythologists and especially from modern cosmologists and astrophysicists, and still I´ve hold onto my intuitive perceptions and logical arguments, which now begins to get through in modern scientific investigations.

Milky Way galaxy likely formed inside out -
Milky Way galaxy likely formed inside out

Regarding the age of stars in the Milky Way, predominant older stars are found in the outskirts of the Milky Way and the younger one closer to the Milky Way center.

When I say “pre-dominant”, one has to understand the laws of electromagnetism. Where there is an electric current, magnetic circuits are made perpendicularly to the current. Magnetic circuits again induces electric currents and so on, in the entire Milky Way circuit.

This ongoing electromagnetic induction creates of course newer stars in the overall galactic circuit but overall the oldest stars are of course located in the galactic outskirts and the younger on closer to the galactic center.

The title of the linked article above says: “Milky Way likely formed inside out”. I say:

SURELY, LOGICALLY AND EVIDENTLY, THE MILKY WAY FORMED INSIDE OUT.

 

[Native]

That’s just based on your assumptions about Amun-Ra being the light of the Milky Way.

--------------------
Not assumptions but logical conclusions.

1) Hathor is connected to the Milky Way
2) Amun-Ra and Hathor are close connected.
3) Amun-Ra was the first fiery entity (Light) to come forward from the primordial waters
4) Hathor, the Milky Way figure, is the daugther of Amun-Ra
5) The logical conclusion is that Amun-Ra represents the central Milky Way light from where everything in our galaxy is created, inclusive Hathor who represent the contours of the Milky Way.

Amun-Ra is NOT the Sun as one read all over in encyclopedia and books, but Amun-Ra represents the MIlky Way central Light.

Gnostic,
You keep on rejecting my mythical and cosmological perceptions and just focus on the historic cultural texts without comparing the very contents and context in the myths. This will get you nowhere regarding understanding the ancient myths.

 

[gnostic]

Regarding the age of stars in the Milky Way, predominant older stars are found in the outskirts of the Milky Way and the younger one closer to the Milky Way center.

When I say “pre-dominant”, one has to understand the laws of electromagnetism. Where there is an electric current, magnetic circuits are made perpendicularly to the current. Magnetic circuits again induces electric currents and so on, in the entire Milky Way circuit.

This ongoing electromagnetic induction creates of course newer stars in the overall galactic circuit but overall the oldest stars are of course located in the galactic outskirts and the younger on closer to the galactic center.

You still going on about electromagnetism.

It is not merely electromagnetism that are involved in the cosmology of the universe, but ALL FOUR FUNDAMENTAL INTERACTIONS (or Forces), not just the one.

Without the strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, there are no matters, no molecules, no atoms.

Without the gravitational force, there are no planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

No one here, is denying that electromagnetism place in the scheme of cosmic things, but you are focusing too much on EM without the other missing pieces.

Polymath have already explained these to you, but you don't get it. With you, it is just EM this, and EM that.

How about paying attention to what other have to say. You may have the myths down to pat (but even here, I think you are screwing it up), but when it comes to reality of modern physical cosmology, it is a train wreck.

 

[Polymath257]

You still going on about electromagnetism.

It is not merely electromagnetism that are involved in the cosmology of the universe, but ALL FOUR FUNDAMENTAL INTERACTIONS (or Forces), not just the one.

Without the strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, there are no matters, no molecules, no atoms.

Without the gravitational force, there are no planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

No one here, is denying that electromagnetism place in the scheme of cosmic things, but you are focusing too much on EM without the other missing pieces.

Polymath have already explained these to you, but you don't get it. With you, it is just EM this, and EM that.

How about paying attention to what other have to say. You may have the myths down to pat (but even here, I think you are screwing it up), but when it comes to reality of modern physical cosmology, it is a train wreck.

The other issue here is that E&M is *by far* the best understood of the four fundamental forces. We understand E&M at the quantum level and have since the 1940's or so. And it simply doesn't act in the way that @Native seems to imagine.

He also seems to ignore that alternative laws of gravity *were* explored as alternatives to dark matter. Those alternatives were interesting possible explanations until the actual observations of galaxy cluster collisions showed that even a modified gravity would require dark matter to explain what is seen.

I'm not even going to get into the strangeness of attempting to link Egyptian mythology with modern cosmology. Let's just say that it is no wonder these ideas are rejected out of hand.

 

[Native]

You still going on about electromagnetism.

It is not merely electromagnetism that are involved in the cosmology of the universe, but ALL FOUR FUNDAMENTAL INTERACTIONS (or Forces), not just the one.

Without the strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, there are no matters, no molecules, no atoms.

Without the gravitational force, there are no planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

No one here, is denying that electromagnetism place in the scheme of cosmic things, but you are focusing too much on EM without the other missing pieces.

Polymath have already explained these to you, but you don't get it. With you, it is just EM this, and EM that.

How about paying attention to what other have to say. You may have the myths down to pat (but even here, I think you are screwing it up), but when it comes to reality of modern physical cosmology, it is a train wreck.

--------------
No wonder that cosmological scientists have huge problems with understanding cosmos! They´ve splitted electricity up in three areas of fundamental formation qualities - and some of the scientist regards the weakest force of all, "gravity", to rule the entire Universe. That´s really funny.

Without the strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, there are no matters, no molecules, no atoms.

As this concerns atomic matters and their electric conditions and qualities, it´s of course all about electricity. Electric forces and magnetism is of course basically one and the same phenomenon all over the Universe and it should be taken as such. The only "differens" is the strength of the actual electric current and charge when working in an actual locality.

When very strong gamma- and x-ray forces are observed in and out from the galactic center, this is an obvious evidence of the formational process as such going on in the center. It is specifically this electricity which creates the luminous center in galaxies and it forms stars and everything else and the very helical motion of electricity also creates the galactic disk and the rotational and orbital motions all over in the galaxy.

Without the gravitational force, there are no planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

----------
Don´t forget that the gravitational ideas of celestial motion is directly contradicted by observations. Besides this, you´ve just been linked to a scientific article which likely confirms that the formation in our galaxy goes from within the galactic center. Just remember that. The assumed "gravity" has nothing to do with formation of stars and everything else.

 

[gnostic]

--------------------
Not assumptions but logical conclusions.

1) Hathor is connected to the Milky Way
2) Amun-Ra and Hathor are close connected.
3) Amun-Ra was the first fiery entity (Light) to come forward from the primordial waters
4) Hathor, the Milky Way figure, is the daugther of Amun-Ra
5) The logical conclusion is that Amun-Ra represents the central Milky Way light from where everything in our galaxy is created, inclusive Hathor who represent the contours of the Milky Way.

Amun-Ra is NOT the Sun as one read all over in encyclopedia and books, but Amun-Ra represents the MIlky Way central Light.

Gnostic,
You keep on rejecting my mythical and cosmological perceptions and just focus on the historic cultural texts without comparing the very contents and context in the myths. This will get you nowhere regarding understanding the ancient myths.

I don't know anything about you, so I don't know your background, qualification and experiences.

Your grasp on myths are okay, but your grasp on science is a train wreck.

I am not rejecting the myths and I am not rejecting the science behind cosmology (although I am neutral with the theoretical side of astrophysics and cosmology, eg multiverse model and cyclical model are not scientific theories (yet), because they don’t meet the “testing” and “evidence” stage of Scientific Method).

What I do reject, is your personal assumptions/interpretations of both.

You don’t need to repeat yourself regarding to Amun-Re being the light of the Milky Way, as I already understood what you were saying in your earlier replies; I just find your argument and assumptions to be weak conjectures, of trying to link science to myth, and failing at both.

I don’t see us agreeing with anything and it is late and I’m tired, so goodnight.

 

[Native]

I don't know anything about you, so I don't know your background, qualification and experiences.

-------------
In my opinion education really don´t care. What cares is the logics in our arguments build on an approach which is as broad as possible.

(although I am neutral with the theoretical side of astrophysics and cosmology, eg multiverse model and cyclical model are not scientific theories (yet), because they don’t meet the “testing” and “evidence” stage of Scientific Method).

------------
Exactly. ". . . they don´t meet the “testing” and “evidence” stage of Scientific Method". Which is why I am testing their theories and investigating their astrophysical problems and discoveries where the logics fails.

What I do reject, is your personal assumptions/interpretations of both.

You don’t need to repeat yourself regarding to Amun-Re being the light of the Milky Way, as I already understood what you were saying in your earlier replies; I just find your argument and assumptions to be weak conjectures, of trying to link science to myth, and failing at both.

-------------
This is just a normal reaction when people meet and discuss matters from different point of views. We all have problems understanding other points of views which is why it is easy to reject the views instead of taking on the hard work of really listening to each other.

OK, Thanks for our conversation here and "see you later"