Where is Mount Sumeru?

[sayak83]

Mount Sumeru is a large mountain peak that is supposed to be a million miles high, residing on earth.
Where is it actually?

Most likely:- Imagination land.

 

[Native]

@gnostic,
Thanks for your elaborated answer

My problem with you, I am sure Riverwolf feels the same way, is why should I trust what you have to say or to claim regarding to galactic formation, when you cannot or will not supply scientific (peer reviewed) sources to back up your claim?

I am a self-taught researcer in Comparative Mythology for some 35 years and I´ve studied modern cosmology circa 20 years. I have no University education and no titles besides my self-announced "Natural Philosopher". What chances do you think I have for getting a peer review article published with this personal CV?

Regarding my claims of a "circular formation in galaxies", which I´ve had for some 20 years, this have caused huge cosmological discussions between me and scholarly educated people in this area because of their "standard model" perceptions and my own alternative approach to cosmology, which really derives from my mythological insights.

When I linked Rivervolf to the search results of "galaxy-formation+inside+out", I found several articles which begins to find and describe ideas which fits with my perception, even though I coudn´t find any specific peer review articles yet of this issue.

Even established scientists have difficulties with launching new ideas which contradicts or severely corrects actual cosmological perceptions and natural laws. So noone can really demand a fresh peer review article from anyone in this state of discovery from the established scientists.

Riverwolf is no fool, and your biggest mistake would be to underestimate his knowledge in science. And he would prefer to have knowledge and idea that he can verify himself. He would good scientific sources, and not some pseudoscience and biased websites from some creationist quacks.

Well, maybe Rivervolf take me as a "creationist quack" since he didn´t bother to even read the linked scientific articles which clearly speaks of the same idea as mine?

Alone our much debated sentense: "Mount Meru represent a center around which the Sun and all planets orbits as one unit" should IMO be sufficient enough for any cosmolocal scientist to seriously ask into the mythical claim of Mount Mery representing the Milky Way center and see if this holds any plausible truth.

The only thing we can demand of us selves and others, is to be open minded and sincerely interested in each others arguments - and politely ask for more explanations and logical arguments if we don´t understand the answers and arguments.

A little test: Try to look at the Milky Way structure - http://www.universetoday.com/wp-con...ilky-Way-artist-ESO-FINALlabeled_edited-1.jpg - If the standard explanation is that everything is drawn into its center, how is this possible when the galactic arms takes a 90 degree turn into the galactic bars?

And the answer is?

 

[atanu]

Most likely:- Imagination land.

Does this mean anything in the context of subject of this thread?

From Rig Veda
1.164.34 I ask you, (institutor of the rite), what is the uttermost end of the earth; I ask you, where is the navel of the world. I ask you, what is the fecundating power of the rain-shedding steed; I ask you, what is the supreme heaven of (holy) speech.
1.164.35 This altar is the uttermost end of the earth; this sacrifice is the navel of the world; this Soma is the fecundating power of the rain-shedding steed; this BrahmA is the supreme heaven of (holy) speech.
....
1.164.37 I distinguish not if I am this all; for I go perplexed, and bound in mind; when the first-born (perceptions) of the truth reach me, then immediately shall I obtain a portion (of the meaning) of that (sacred) word.

 

[Native]

Hello atanu,

I ask you, (institutor of the rite), what is the uttermost end of the earth; I ask you, where is the navel of the world.

"The navel of the world"-question depends on one´s extended astronomical knowledge of the world. The Earth axis is mythically mentioned as the navel of the world. If you include the Solar System, the Sun is the navel and if you include our Milky Way galaxy, it´s center is the navel - very likely described with the Mount Meru myth around which the Sun and planets orbits as one unit, as modern cosmology have observed.
.

 

[atanu]

Hello atanu,

"The navel of the world"-question depends on one´s extended astronomical knowledge of the world. The Earth axis is mythically mentioned as the navel of the world. If you include the Solar System, the Sun is the navel and if you include our Milky Way galaxy, it´s center is the navel - very likely described with the Mount Meru myth around which the Sun and planets orbits as one unit, as modern cosmology have observed.
.

That is fine, Native. Thanks.

As per Rig Veda, as far as I understand, the altar of sacrifice is the navel (the centre). Altar of sacrifice is man itself.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Most likely:- Imagination land.

Your display image is too adorable to disagree or argue with you.
But as I said, anything could be possible.

 

[Native]

Additional informations about the galactic-inside-out formation:

A couple examples of articles

Quote from - http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies/milky-way-grew-from-the-inside-out-160111.htm

“As expected, the analysis shows the galaxy’s central disk formed from the inside out, with red giant stars as old as about 13 billion years clustered toward the center and younger stars about 1 billion years old closer to the disk’s edge, astronomer Melissa Ness, with the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, told reporters at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Kissimmee, Florida”.

And:
“Our Milky Way Galaxy formed by expanding out from the center, suggests analysis of first data from the Gaia-ESO survey – the ground-based extension to the Gaia space mission, launched by the European Space Agency at the end of 2013”. From - http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-milky-way-galaxy-01704.html

This is basically what I´ve meant for some 20 years, even though the scientists in question have some way to go before they fully can match the knowledge of the ancient cultural myths of creation.

The scientific hypothesis of an inside-out-formation of the Milky Way is a part of the Lambda Cold Matter Cosmology Hypothesis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

(The scientist used spectral analysis in order to determine the age (according to the Standard Model of nucleosynthesis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis - but the age of a star has nothing to do with it´s metallicity and this measurement of course influences the cosmological interpretations)

 

[gnostic]

I am a self-taught researcer in Comparative Mythology for some 35 years and I´ve studied modern cosmology circa 20 years. I have no University education and no titles besides my self-announced "Natural Philosopher". What chances do you think I have for getting a peer review article published with this personal CV?

As I understand what exchange between you and Riverwolf, Riverwolf was asking you to provide scientific "peer reviewed" papers, not that you provides own papers that are peer-reviewed, to back what you have claimed.

Hence, independent sources other than yours (your own work or your own claims).

PS

I have done my own research on mythology, legend and folklore. I posted my own website on myths, called Timeless Myths, as well as another on biblical myths called Dark Mirrors of Heavens.

The only thing we can demand of us selves and others, is to be open minded and sincerely interested in each others arguments - and politely ask for more explanations and logical arguments if we don´t understand the answers and arguments.

I like logic and explanation...but I only like logic that go hand-in-hand with ample verifiable evidences.

 

[Native]

As I understand what exchange between you and Riverwolf, Riverwolf was asking you to provide scientific "peer reviewed" papers, not that you provides own papers that are peer-reviewed, to back what you have claimed.

Hence, independent sources other than yours (your own work or your own claims).

The problems are:

1) I´ve had the idea of the inside-out-formation in our galaxy for some 20 years - and cannot get any papers reviewed.
2) Modern science are on the brink to discover this - and it seems nobody have got any peer reviews on this subject yet.

Anyway, I have this paper - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B_ze4R9xrRgzT2gxZ01lQm02aXM - which describes my perception of the formational proces in galaxies - and this explanation also fits the many cultural Stories of Creation.

PS: But I STILL find it somewhat strange that one can quote clear astronomical texts from mythical/religious sources which indicates ancient knowledge of the Milky Way - and people still think "myths are just mumbo jumbo".

 

[gnostic]

PS: But I STILL find it somewhat strange that one can quote clear astronomical texts from mythical/religious sources which indicates ancient knowledge of the Milky Way - and people still think "myths are just mumbo jumbo".

I like a good story. But liking a good story doesn't mean that I have to believe the story to be true.

It is the way I read myths.

We give names to constellations, and surround these constellations with stories or myths of how they came to be, but these constellations don't actually exist.

They are human constructs, we perceive forms and shapes of people, animals and objects, by connecting stars, like dots, and create stories on how these set of stars got there, but they are just myths.

There are no lines, forms or shapes in our night sky. They are imaginary.

Constellations are however useful, in orientations of where to find objects, such as stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc. By knowing where a galaxy, star or nebula is located in our sky in relation to which constellation, we can easy find it again the next night, next week, next year or even a century from now.

Yes, the Milky Way exist, but I don't put much stock in the ancient stories behind it...other than been entertained by these myths.

 

[Native]

• 
  

  We give names to constellations, and surround these constellations with stories or myths of how they came to be, but these constellations don't actually exist.
  They are human constructs, we perceive forms and shapes of people, animals and objects, by connecting stars, like dots, and create stories on how these set of stars got there, but they are just myths.

  I agree on humans all over the world naming everything in the Sky. This is the very basics in every story of creation and the reason why these stories are so similar.
  
  The observed constellations and other celestial motions are of course real - and the human imagination is just used to build the mythical stories in order to explain the motions and qualities of the observed celestial motions.
  
  That is: The mythical tellings of the creation and its motions are truth - but not for those who don´t understand the mythical story telling method and its factual connections to celestial and terrestrial realms.
  
  Once again: When the Hindu Mount Meru myth speaks specifically of the Solar System orbiting around a center as one unit, this is of course a fact and not fiction.
  

 

[gnostic]

Once again: When the Hindu Mount Meru myth speaks specifically of the Solar System orbiting around a center as one unit, this is of course a fact and not fiction.

Again, there are no evidence to support the existence of Mount Meru on earth or in the solar system, and the tallest mountain in the solar system is Olympus Mons on Mars, which I have already said before.

And though the solar system does orbit around the Milky Way's centre, there is nothing about Meru. And the centre is not this any mountain you keep bringing up, and there are no fact to this Mount Meru.

Myth is usually associated with fiction, not fact.

Until you actually provide evidences to support Mount Meru, you have no fact.

There are only so much I can patiently disagree with you, and you provided no facts, before I'd ignore your future replies.

 

[Native]

Again, there are no evidence to support the existence of Mount Meru on earth or in the solar system, and the tallest mountain in the solar system is Olympus Mons on Mars, which I have already said before.

Correct. this symbolical mountain cannot be found in the Solar System at all.

And though the solar system does orbit around the Milky Way's centre, there is nothing about Meru.

You agree in the scientific part of the Hindu myth - but not in the part of the myth which describes the Solar System orbital center, denying this to exist?

You cannot decide the existance of Meru unless you understand the symbols of creation myths - which you can´t understand before you take the entire context of these myths seriously.

 

[Native]

As I was "a little short" in my last post, here are some more elaborations of the Mound Meru myth

Hindu Astronomy

Quote from – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya_Siddhanta#Astronomy

The Surya Siddhanta is the name of multiple treatises (siddhanta) in Hindu astronomy. It has rules laid down to determine the true motions of the luminaries, which conform to their actual positions in the sky. It gives the locations of several stars other than the lunar nakshatras and treats the calculation of solar eclipses as well as solstices.

Significant coverage is on kinds of time, length of the year of gods and demons, day and night of god Brahma, the elapsed period since creation, how planets move eastwards and sidereal revolution. The Earth's diameter and circumference are also given. Eclipses and color of the eclipsed portion of the moon are mentioned.

There is no doubts of ancient mytho-astronomical facts.
------------------------------
Mount Meru as a symbol for the celestial pole or what?

Quotes:
“The Puranic and Sumerian traditions also spoke of this “Mount Sumeru.” In Ancient Iran they spoke of Mount Hara Berezaiti with a celestial spring on its highest peak in the realm of the stars. In ancient Chinese writings there is Mount Khun-Lun with a bronze Pillar of Heaven at the summit where the immortals dwell. The Turkmen tribes of Southern Turkestan speak of a copper pillar that marks the “naval of the Earth.” The Mongols wrote of Mount Sumber or Sumer with the Zambu tree on its summit. The Buryats of Siberia talk of Mount Sumur with the North pole star fastened to its summit.

The Egyptians wrote of the “Mound of the First Time” which was the first land to appear from the Waters and is the dwelling place of the High God, the source of light. The Muslims write of Qaf and Zoroastrians of Sogdiana wrote of Girnagar the world encircling mountains. The Navajos spoke of “encircled mountain” which was surrounded by four directional mountains.

The Dogon tribe of Nigeria spoke of a cosmic pillar spanning 14 worlds which is the “roof-post of the house of the high god Amma.” The ancient Greek mythology tells of Mount Olympus the Home of the gods. The ancient German told of “Irminsul” a universal column which sustains everything. The Norse Edda spoke of Asgard, the burgh of the gods rising in the center of Midgard, the circular earth”.
------------------
There are several correct mytho-cosmological descriptions of the Earth´s celestial pole – but this topic is often scholarly confused with the mythical term, the “primordial mound of creation” which is connected to the creation of the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way.

The idea of Mount Meru representing the celestial pole axis is also considered be me, but I´ve discarded it because of several reasons, mainly because of the scholarly confusion between the mythical concept of “the primordial mound of creation” and a real geographical mountain and of course with the real mytho-astronomical knowledge of the Earth axis.

The primordial mound or the “primordial hill” is mentioned in several myths of creation. It is the mytho-cosmological location connected to another mythical term, “the cosmic Egg” from where the creation of the ancient known part of the Universe, unfolds and thus “creates the first firm matter” from where everything grows in the ancient known world perception.

It is this cosmic mound which is confused be many scholars to be a real mountain because these scholars don´t include the Milky Way Mythology and the numerous cultural Stories of Creation into their interpretations.

By reading the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, where Atum-Ra is the first “fiery entity” to be made in the creation, and by reading of the Egyptian goddess Hathor, who specifically is connected to the Milky Way and who has “a complex connection to Atum-Ra”, one can conclude from this connection and from the text which states that “together Atum-Ra and Hathor created everything in the ancient know part of the Universe”, the conclusion is that the center from which everything here is from the center of our Milky Way – around which "the Sun and all planets are orbiting as one unit” as it is said in the Mound Meru myth.

I don´t think I can explain my points of view any better than this

Links:
Example of the Primeval Mound or Hill - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benben
Goddess Hathor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor
The Egyptian Ogdoad - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogdoad#In_Egyptian_mythology

 

[Riverwolf]

The problems are:

1) I´ve had the idea of the inside-out-formation in our galaxy for some 20 years - and cannot get any papers reviewed.

I understand how frustrating that is, but I need to have independent confirmation when it comes to scientific claims. Falling back on the "you just don't understand!" argument is nothing but an appeal to emotions, and "you just can't understand" is nothing more than an ad hominim. Both logical fallacies that are indicative of a lack of any real arguments.

Put yourself in my shoes for a bit. If, earlier in this thread, I responded to your request for evidence that Galaxies eat each other, with claims that the Solar System is not native to the Milky Way and proceded to cite a bunch of news articles from 2007 when idea circulated the media, wouldn't you be VERY skeptical?

If so, good. You should be. And, for the record, you should be skeptical of all my arguments if my citations don't satisfy you.

For whatever it's worth, I tried to look at your paper, but there was nothing at the link.

2) Modern science are on the brink to discover this - and it seems nobody have got any peer reviews on this subject yet.

Well, guess what?

If the rest of the astronomy community independently verifies this, can get several peer-reivewed papers on this subject, and it can gain some momentum as a valid theory unless the Event Horizon Telescope can snap a direct photo of Sagittarius A* (which hopefully should happen sometime next year SO EXCITING ) and demonstrate once and for all that it's a Supermassive Black Hole, then I will consider your hypothesis regarding the Core as a valid possibility.

and people still think "myths are just mumbo jumbo".

In case you thought otherwise, I do not think that. I'm rather offended by such nonsense, in fact.

If art has a heirarchy, there is no art higher than myth in my opinion. Artists use lies to tell the truth, it is said; even though Super Heroes aren't real people, there is a cultural truth in those myths that go beyond the existence of RLSHs.

 

[Native]

I understand how frustrating that is, but I need to have independent confirmation when it comes to scientific claims. Falling back on the "you just don't understand!" argument is nothing but an appeal to emotions, and "you just can't understand" is nothing more than an ad hominim. Both logical fallacies that are indicative of a lack of any real arguments.

I agree in this - and I just used these sentences in order to underline the importance of "trying to understand my arguments".

For whatever it's worth, I tried to look at your paper, but there was nothing at the link.

My paper, "Circular Galactic Formation", should be available at - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B_ze4R9xrRgzT2gxZ01lQm02aXM - Click on the PDF file.

I´ve just found articles (by googling "stellar migration in our galaxy") which indicates such a circular formation in galaxies with stars moving both away and towards the center. Read here - http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-map-milky-way-galaxy-stellar-migration-03093.html

If the rest of the astronomy community independently verifies this, can get several peer-reivewed papers on this subject, and it can gain some momentum as a valid theory unless the Event Horizon Telescope can snap a direct photo of Sagittarius A* (which hopefully should happen sometime next year SO EXCITING ) and demonstrate once and for all that it's a Supermassive Black Hole, then I will consider your hypothesis regarding the Core as a valid possibility.

It seems to me that the "stellar migration findings" suggests otherwise and the scientists cannot get a photo of a hole, but only judge the quality of the center by observing the surroundings of the Milky Way center - where stars moves both away and towards the center, following the electromagnetic rules and spherical motions.

IMO the galactic "Supermassive Black Hole" just represents the galactic whirling funnels on both planes of the galaxy, indicating the galaxy to be electromagnetically governed as illustrated in this image - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/800_nasa_structure_renderin2.jpg - The electric current creates the bubbles - and the perpendicular magnetic field/circuit creates the Milky Way disc and the main formation takes place in the galactic core.

Edit: The galactic core is mentioned in Myths of Creation as the Primeval Mound and the formation is described mythically with a the symbol of a Cosmic Egg from where everything in the ancient known part of the Universe, the Milky Way, is created.

The Mount Meru myth describes the very Milky Way rotational axis around which the Sun and all it´s planets orbits as one unit.

 

[Riverwolf]

My paper, "Circular Galactic Formation", should be available at - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B_ze4R9xrRgzT2gxZ01lQm02aXM - Click on the PDF file.

Well, apparently I can't access it for whatever reason. The link just takes me to my own empty (having never been used) Google drive account.

I´ve just found articles (by googling "stellar migration in our galaxy") which indicates such a circular formation in galaxies with stars moving both away and towards the center. Read here - http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-map-milky-way-galaxy-stellar-migration-03093.html

That's better. It's still a news source, but a good one that I can trust to be accurate. And to be perfectly transparent, I'm not an astronomer or astrophysicist, and so the VAST bulk of my knowledge of astronomy comes from such sources as the Youtube shows SciShow Space, PBS SpaceTime, Crash Course Astronomy, Fraser Cain, etc., the first of which is written and hosted by reporters, not (to my knowledge) actual scientists. And all but two of which are funded by PBS Digital Studios, and SciShow and Crash Course both executively produced by Hank and John Green (neither of whom are scientists).

Incidentally:

As for that article, I don't really see anything in it to support your hypothesis. From the article:

These random in-and-out motions [moving closer or farther from the galactic center with time] are referred to as ‘migration,’ and are likely caused by irregularities in the galactic disk, such as the Milky Way’s famous spiral arms.
​

That article was also originally published last year, in August of 2015. An article published this year indicates that the Supermassive Black Hole model is still the accepted standard:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/red-geyser-galaxies-03897.html

...they named the galaxies in question "Akira" and "Tetsuo." That just... tickles my otaku something giddy. (And I don't even really like Akira. lol)

It seems to me that the "stellar migration findings" suggests otherwise and the scientists cannot get a photo of a hole,

Well, "black hole" (as you should know) is kind of a misnomer. But, like I said, the coveted photo is not even expected to get taken until sometime next year. I don't expect any of our current telescopes would be able to snap an actual picture of the dark region so beautifully depicted in art (and REALLY trippy to fly around in Elite Dangerous), since even Sagittarius A*, though around four MILLION Solar Masses, has an event horizon (which would be that black part) that extends to just beneath the perihelion of Mercury. This thing is about 26,000 light years away; nothing we have can resolve that well.

but only judge the quality of the center by observing the surroundings of the Milky Way center - where stars moves both away and towards the center, following the electromagnetic rules and spherical motions.

"Electromagnetic rules" and "spherical motions"? What do you mean by these? The stars you speak of are merely orbiting Sgt A*, as would be expected.

IMO the galactic "Supermassive Black Hole" just represents the galactic whirling funnels on both planes of the galaxy, indicating the galaxy to be electromagnetically governed as illustrated in this image - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/800_nasa_structure_renderin2.jpg - The electric current creates the bubbles - and the perpendicular magnetic field/circuit creates the Milky Way disc and the main formation takes place in the galactic core.

You do realize that "electromagnetism" is pretty much nothing more than a fancy word for "light"?

Edit: The galactic core is mentioned in Myths of Creation as the Primeval Mound and the formation is described mythically with a the symbol of a Cosmic Egg from where everything in the ancient known part of the Universe, the Milky Way, is created.

The Mount Meru myth describes the very Milky Way rotational axis around which the Sun and all it´s planets orbits as one unit.

Well, I'm going to try something different, now. Since if I directly challenge this hypothesis, we'll just go in circles again, I'm instead going to ask you this:

If what you say is true, that all the various pre-modern cultures in the world, with technological levels ranging from Neolithic to Iron Age, all knew that the Milky Way they could see in the night sky (and which most of us can't anymore because of light pollution ) was the disk that we knew it to be, and had all independently determined that the Core was the area of creation... how did they figure that out? What technology and mathematics do you suppose they used? And why would they call it a "mountain"?

 

[Native]

Well, apparently I can't access it for whatever reason. The link just takes me to my own empty (having never been used) Google drive account.

OK. I´m working on uploading the paper to another server.

As for that article, I don't really see anything in it to support your hypothesis. From the article:
These random in-and-out motions [moving closer or farther from the galactic center with time] are referred to as ‘migration,’ and are likely caused by irregularities in the galactic disk, such as the Milky Way’s famous spiral arms.

"Irregularities" is just a astrophycisists word for "accordingly to standing theories, we really don´t know what´s going on". When stars are migration both outwards and inwards comparing to the galactic center, this confirms the laws of electric currents and a magnetic field circuit, which IMO governs the formation in galaxies.

You do realize that "electromagnetism" is pretty much nothing more than a fancy word for "light"?

Not just that. But also magnetic (spherical) fields as on the Earth and the Sun.

If what you say is true, that all the various pre-modern cultures in the world, with technological levels ranging from Neolithic to Iron Age, all knew that the Milky Way they could see in the night sky was the disk that we knew it to be, and had all independently determined that the Core was the area of creation... how did they figure that out? What technology and mathematics do you suppose they used? And why would they call it a "mountain"?

Hold onto your scientific braces As electromagnetic beings, we all can communicate with the electromagnetic creation and lots of human beings have done just that. Which is why the numerous cultural Stories of Creation are so similar.

As mentoned before, the correct name for the mythical galactic core is not "mountain" but "mound = a round hill". Google "mound" and click on images. The round mounds resembles the galactic bulged core and the general shape of galaxy.

 

[Riverwolf]

OK. I´m working on uploading the paper to another server.

"Irregularities" is just a astrophycisists word for "accordingly to standing theories, we really don´t know what´s going on".

In my experience, cynical declarations of certain terms being "just" a way of covering one's butt are rarely accurate.

But I figured it was just a given that we don't really know what's going on. There's still much to learn. Good scientists are fully willing and able to admit to any problems with their hypotheses and theories.

When stars are migration both outwards and inwards comparing to the galactic center,

Except we don't. All observations show that we're orbiting the Core, just as Earth orbits Sun.

In fact, let's do a bit of fun research! What was happening on Earth roughly 1 Galactic Year ago? Well, according to a quick search...
...
...well, that's... ominous.

this confirms the laws of electric currents and a magnetic field circuit, which IMO governs the formation in galaxies.

Not just that. But also magnetic (spherical) fields as on the Earth and the Sun.

Earth and Sun, indeed, have magnetospheres, and it's still a bit of a mystery as to why. Venus, for all intents and purposes, doesn't have one, and what little she does have is weaker than Mercury's. Mars has basically none at all. Jupiter's is the biggest planetary one in our Solar System.

Know what a magnetar is?

Hold onto your scientific braces

Don't get too excited. Remember, I may be a theist, but when it comes to scientific matters, I'm quite skeptical of claims that aren't in line with the current consensus.

As electromagnetic beings, we all can communicate with the electromagnetic creation and lots of human beings have done just that. Which is why the numerous cultural Stories of Creation are so similar.

So how come nobody can do that anymore? Can you?

Besides, from what I've seen, there's almost no real similarities between the various Creation myths throughout the world (assuming a Creation myth even exists in a given culture, which isn't always the case.) Sure, there are some similarities within the various Indo-European myths, but of course there are; we're part of a greater cultural-linguistic paradigm.

And when it comes to many creation stories of Northern European cultures (Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Finno-Uralic, etc.), we need to be VERY careful with any similarities that might exist to others, because by the time any of their stories were written down, Christianization had already taken place, and so could have distorted the "original" stories. (The Hauksbók version of Vǫluspá contains the verse: "Adown cometh to the doom of the world the great godhead which governs all." A clear sign of Christian influence.) Never mind that this could have already happened when the Indo-European cultures (i.e., the Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic) took over the indigenous ones.

As mentoned before, the correct name for the mythical galactic core is not "mountain" but "mound = a round hill". Google "mound" and click on images. The round mounds resembles the galactic bulged core and the general shape of galaxy.

I don't need to Google anything. The word "cloud" originally meant "hill"; the word for the atmospheric structures was originally "welkin" (or, more accurately, wolcen).

And as I mentioned before, there are actual stories about what the Milky Way even is; such is evident from the name itself. (Fun fact: "galaxias" actually means "milky way." So, "Milky Way Galaxy" is, in truth, a redundant name! LOL It also means "tailor's chalk" and, of all things, "dogfish.") And none of these stories fit what you're claiming.

Now, I've never seen the Milky Way (thanks, light pollution! DX), but from what I understand, to the naked eye it looks pretty much like a pale whitish-blue streak of clouds. (Certainly not like those gorgeous photographs). Hence, "milk".

 

[Native]

In my experience, cynical declarations of certain terms being "just" a way of covering one's butt are rarely accurate.

Yes Almost like "everything is sucked into a black hole and ayway", free for all to speculate on the nothingness of this statement. Contrary to this impossible idea, most mythical tellings state everything to be eternal (the laws of conservation) but also eternally changing = cyclical.
The forces of creation formats everyhting, dissolve everything and recreate everything. This is how "superior deities creates their children, eat them and recreated them in another shape. This is also how I, for instants, understand the Norse Ragnarok as a cyclical telling of creation.

So how come nobody can do that anymore? Can you?

Most people are to busy. Yes, I´ve had some visions - http://www.native-science.net/Visions.Dreams.htm

Besides, from what I've seen, there's almost no real similarities between the various Creation myths throughout the world (assuming a Creation myth even exists in a given culture, which isn't always the case.) Sure, there are some similarities within the various Indo-European myths, but of course there are; we're part of a greater cultural-linguistic paradigm.

You assume this connection to be linguistic only, which is fair enough, but if speaking of myths of creation, we have to take off in what is created, namely the common cosmological condition for all humans which of course provides the most of similarities in the ancient myths of creation.

(Fun fact: "galaxias" actually means "milky way."

Which is why some cultures (Norse/Indian/Egypt) describes the Milky Way contours as a "Celestial Cow" from which everything is created and nursed.

Now, I've never seen the Milky Way (thanks, light pollution! DX), but from what I understand, to the naked eye it looks pretty much like a pale whitish-blue streak of clouds. (Certainly not like those gorgeous photographs). Hence, "milk".

Swedish Rock Art (charcoal rubbing of the rock surface) and the Egyptian god Seth

Lucky me I can observe the northern contours of the Milky Way contours very clear - except from 3-4 month in the lightest season when the Sun dimms the sight of the stars and contours. At the very best, the contours looks pretty much as the Swedish Rock Art figure - Which is very similar to the Egyptian god, Seth.

Look up in the Sky - and of course people on the same hemisphere observes the same structures and motions and thus of course telling the same mytho-cosmological stories.