Investigating Sacred Waters, Rivers and Deities

Native · Jul 29, 2020

gnostic said:
Again, these are gases, not liquid hydrogen or liquid helium. Not the same things.
Yes, there are abundance of hydrogen and helium, but they are not in liquid forms.

You are quoting out of this context:

Native said:
Cosmic ocean - Wikipedia
A cosmic ocean or celestial river is a mythological motif found in the mythology of many cultures and civilizations, representing the world or cosmos as enveloped by primordial waters.

In creation myths, the primordial waters are often represented as originally having filled the entire universe, being the first source of the gods cosmos with the act of creation corresponding to the establishment of an inhabitable space separate from the enveloping waters.

Edit: Of course if you look at the single hydrogen and helium atom, you cannot describe these as a "Cosmic Sea". They are just vibrational atoms in them selves. But when you include these into the 99.99 % of the estimated Universe, you get a "sea" of atoms which fits logically to the mythical mythical concept of the "Cosmic Sea" or "Primordial Waters" from where everything is created.

gnostic said:
Interstellar clouds and molecular clouds of gases are normally inert, until they are hit by ultraviolet, x-ray or gamma radiations. These higher frequencies will cause these gases to ionize (lose their electrons).That's what CAUSE THESE CLOUDS OF GASES to glow.

I know and this is really described here:

Native said:
“Together, the four concepts represent the primal, fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always was. In the myth, however, their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced, resulting in the arising of a new entity. When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside. After a long interval of rest, Ra, together with the other deities, created all other things”.

This "fiery light" is the very result of gases and dust coming together - in the central luminous Milky Way.

gnostic said:
And that's what we and the ancient people see, when we look at the Milky Way, the glow from spiral arms, not the centre.

Obviously and evidently the bulged Milky Way center is significant more luminous compared to it´s lesser illuminated arms.

Onoma · Jul 29, 2020

Native said:
Thanks for your contributions - This makes much sense to me.

As ancient cultures described the very creation as a result from "the primordial waters" this "water" really is equal to knowledge and wisdom of the creation.

Regarding the Quinotaur Myth, this concurs to the general "Sea Serpent" terminology in myths. For instants in Norse Mythology, we have the Midgaard Serpent encircling Midgaard, the home of humans i. e. the Earth. IMO this serpent resembles the very contours of the whitish Milky Way band wich is observable all around the Earth. So it´s very understandable that for instants the Egyptian deities and faraos had a serpent as a prime head gear attribute.

And in such connection, it is very understandable that this "serpent beast" "produced the lineage of Merovingian kings".

During the course of my studies into ancient Mesopotamian literature, I discovered that " serpent / dragon / monster " were all also common sobriquet ( Nicknames ) in literature for a priest-king

gnostic · Jul 29, 2020

Native said:
Of course if you look at the single hydrogen and helium atom, you cannot describe these as a "Cosmic Sea".

When do molecular clouds of hydrogen and helium be a single hydrogen atom or single helium atom?

I did write “cloud”, Native, not “one atom”.

You don’t know a single thing about astronomy, because a single cloud can be hundreds of light in size. These are often region in space, where new star systems are formed.

There are many molecular clouds, and are often parts of nebulas, which are interstellar clouds of both gases and dust. Examples, the very famous and nearby Orion Nebula, is star nursery, where new stars are formed as well as planets (hence “star systems”).

Native said:
This "fiery light" is the very result of gases and dust coming together - in the central luminous Milky Way.

Obviously and evidently the bulged Milky Way center is significant more luminous compared to it´s lesser illuminated arms.

No, Native.

That’s the image of only very small portion of the Milky Way’s Carina-Sagittarius arm.

With the naked eye, we only see the dust, and glow from ionized gases, cause by the sources of light, coming from the stars, behind the cloud of dust, very much what you would see in any nebula.

For example, the Eagle Nebula have dark regions, filled with interstellar dust, and glow around these regions, like some halos:

That’s due to the stars, causing the ionized gases to glow in different colors.

Such is the case of the Sagittarius arm that we can see.

Native · Jul 30, 2020

gnostic said:
When do molecular clouds of hydrogen and helium be a single hydrogen atom or single helium atom?
I did write “cloud”, Native, not “one atom”.

Well okay, but it doesn´t matter anyway. Still, a cosmic cloud of hydrogen and helium consists of lots of (99.99 %) single vibrating gaseous atoms - described in myths as "the Primordial Waters" in the "Cosmic Ocean" as linked already, but not understood or taken seriously by you.

gnostic said:
You don’t know a single thing about astronomy, because a single cloud can be hundreds of light in size. These are often region in space, where new star systems are formed.

Oh yes I do. Because I´ve learned a lot astronomical and cosmological informations from the mythical texts and symbols - together with the modern astronomy and cosmology.
I´m referring to the clould which made the about 100.000 LY wide Milky Way galaxy in where the Solar System once was formed.

I said:

Native said:
Obviously and evidently the bulged Milky Way center is significant more luminous compared to it´s lesser illuminated arms.

You replied:

gnostic said:
No, Native.
That’s the image of only very small portion of the Milky Way’s Carina-Sagittarius arm.

That´s just what I wrote. A "small portion" of the Milky Way galaxy, namely it´s bulged center in the direction of the Sagitta constellation. This bulged structure isn´t found in the galactic arms is it? And the galactic luminosity isn´t brightest in the galactic arms, is it?

gnostic said:
With the naked eye, we only see the dust, and glow from ionized gases, cause by the sources of light, coming from the stars, behind the cloud of dust, very much what you would see in any nebula.

You mean We = You? Your mythical "we" speaks of much more, but you´ll have nothing of it. I´ll suggest you to ask this question before going to sleep: Are the numerous mythical Stories of Creation describing real facts?

In the best of cases we then can have a common discussion in where you stop being oppositional just for being oppositional

gnostic · Jul 30, 2020

Native said:
Oh yes I do. Because I´ve learned a lot astronomical and cosmological informations from the mythical texts and symbols - together with the modern astronomy and cosmology.
I´m referring to the clould which made the about 100.000 LY wide Milky Way galaxy in where the Solar System once was formed.

I recalled that you were the one who stated (from another thread) that the Solar System formed from the centre, before it moved everything to the current position on the Orion spur.

If so, then there are no evidence for such claim, because we know from our observation today, that stars can form where they are, form within nebulas that have molecular clouds, in regions known as H II regions.

For instances the stellar nurseries of the Orion Nebula and the Eagle Nebula, where new stars are formed.

Yes, stars can formed around near the galactic bar or bulge, but stellar formations can take place or form anywhere along the MW’s spiral arms, where there are molecular clouds of gases and dust.

You r notion that stars, including our sun, have to form near the centre, then push outward along the arms, are absurd with no evidence to support it.

gnostic · Jul 30, 2020

Native said:
You mean We = You? Your mythical "we" speaks of much more, but you´ll have nothing of it. I´ll suggest you to ask this question before going to sleep: Are the numerous mythical Stories of Creation describing real facts?

I know facts when I see them, and I know when I see them. They are not the same things.

Myths described, but they don’t explain, let alone test what they described.

There are no cow (Hathor) in space and no milk, just as there are no hawk (Ra) at centre of the galaxy. And there are no oceans in space; clouds of gases, are gases, not liquid.

Sure, I know you are merely interpreting these as symbols or similes, but no matter how you interpret these myths, it doesn’t reflect reality, and various symbols and interpretations are often wrong.

Science explained, and then have to test their explanations. Test can only occur if there are evidence.

That’s the main difference between myths and science.

gnostic · Jul 30, 2020

Native said:
You mean We = You? Your mythical "we" speaks of much more, but you´ll have nothing of it.

I mean “we” as everyone, Native.

Anyone without a powerful telescopes, optical or radio, cannot see much, let alone the centre.

Our angle of view, are obstructed by the spiral arms, and the luminosity that we see along the band in the sky, come from stars around and behind the dark patches of dust.

Now unless, the ancient Egyptians and other cultures, x-ray or gamma ray visions, their eyesight would not be able to penetrate these dust and gases.

Native · Jul 30, 2020

gnostic said:
You r notion that stars, including our sun, have to form near the centre, then push outward along the arms, are absurd with no evidence to support it.

I guess you´re aware of the Galactic Rotation Curve problem? You know the one in where scientists thought the stars to fly away out of the galaxy because of their orbital motions? And where the scientists invented "dark matter" to "hold the stars inside" the galaxy?

You se? The stars are really moving away from the galactic center which logically means that they are formed in the center - just as it is said in the ancient Myths of Creation.

Furthermore: Tell me how can a motion from the arms in a barred galaxy take an abrupt 90 degree turn into the bars?

Well, it logically can´t make such a motion if there should be an atractive motion TOWARDS the galactic center. The ONLY way this can be explained is by a REPULSIVE motion from the swirling center. Very much as the motion of a two armed rotating garden sprinkler spreading droplets, i.e. stars in this case.

Even modern findings confirms now this motion which I´ve been convinced of for 3 decades. You just have to keep your cosmological science updated! Read here!

Native · Jul 30, 2020

gnostic said:
Myths described, but they don’t explain, let alone test what they described.

No, if you completely denies the myths:

gnostic said:
There are no cow (Hathor) in space and no milk, just as there are no hawk (Ra) at centre of the galaxy. And there are no oceans in space; clouds of gases, are gases, not liquid.

They don´t explain anything to you.:
The ancient Greek word for the Milky Way doesn´t mean "milk" to you. Ra or Atum-Ra doesn´t mean the Sun or the central light in the Milky Way and the Hathor goddess who resemble the Milky Way don´t resemble this after all.

gnostic said:
Sure, I know you are merely interpreting these as symbols or similes, but no matter how you interpret these myths, it doesn’t reflect reality, and various symbols and interpretations are often wrong.

How would you know interpretations to be wrong as long as you simply denies the myths and its symbolism and reject all logical and natural interpretations? This is pure oppositionalism and nothing else.

gnostic said:
Science explained, and then have to test their explanations. Test can only occur if there are evidence.
That’s the main difference between myths and science.

Don´t give me such wishful thinking. Your "scientific evidence method" completely failed in the galactic matter of rotation by inventing unseen matters instead of revising the entire theory.

gnostic · Jul 30, 2020

Native said:
I guess you´re aware of the Galactic Rotation Curve problem? You know the one in where scientists thought the stars to fly away out of the galaxy because of their orbital motions? And where the scientists invented "dark matter" to "hold the stars inside" the galaxy?

You se? The stars are really moving away from the galactic center which logically means that they are formed in the center - just as it is said in the ancient Myths of Creation.

Furthermore: Tell me how can a motion from the arms in a barred galaxy take an abrupt 90 degree turn into the bars?

Well, it logically can´t make such a motion if there should be an atractive motion TOWARDS the galactic center. The ONLY way this can be explained is by a REPULSIVE motion from the swirling center. Very much as the motion of a two armed rotating garden sprinkler spreading droplets, i.e. stars in this case.

Even modern findings confirms now this motion which I´ve been convinced of for 3 decades. You just have to keep your cosmological science updated! Read here!

Actually, you are ignoring the parts in the article, where only very massive stars that die young, formed around nearer to the galactic bulge, but other stars formed from molecular clouds along the spiral arms, stars that have longer life cycle than the inner massive stars.

from your Gaia-ESO article said:
Added Gilmore: “This study provides exciting new evidence that the inner parts of the Milky Way's thick disc formed much more rapidly than did the thin disc stars, which dominate near our Solar neighbourhood.”

If the sun is located on the thin disc, then, I am correct in that the sun didn’t at the centre, then move outwards. The sun have formed in the Orion spur, along with other stars, including younger stars that have been and are still being formed in the Orion Nebula, and the sun have longer lifespan than those inner stars on the thick disc.

gnostic · Jul 30, 2020

Native said:
Don´t give me such wishful thinking. Your "scientific evidence method" completely failed in the galactic matter of rotation by inventing unseen matters instead of revising the entire theory.

I only brought up about star formation can occur in the galaxy that are found in the inner and outer parts of the Milky Way.

I am not the who brought up "Dark Matter", you did.

I did not say anything about dark matter in this thread...NOT ONCE, until just now. Whether they exist or not, I have nothing to say about it.

So don't words in my mouth...blaming me for things I didn't say or write about.

All I stated that in past threads, you were the one who say stars were form in the centre, or where the central light of the Milky Way was located, then stars moved along the spiral arms over time.

But as I stated from what I understand about the Milky Way, stars can form almost anywhere - near and around the central bulge or central bar, or anywhere along the spiral arms, such as our Sun, and anywhere there are molecular clouds (or HII regions), such as the Orion Nebula, Eagle Nebula, Trifid Nebula.

I am not denying that stars were formed in the inner region of the Milky Way, but those nebulas demonstrate stars can form on the spiral arms, where there are concentration of dust and ionized gases, like these nebulas. New stars have been formed WITHOUT being located near the centre of the galaxy.

Even that article you linked, say that stars can form ON those arms, including our Sun.

The stars that generally form closer to the centre, tend to be far more massive than our sun, with shorter lifespan. Our Sun is relatively young (compared to the age of the Milky Way), less massive, therefore have lifespan of billions of years.

Native · Jul 31, 2020

gnostic said:
Actually, you are ignoring the parts in the article, where only very massive stars that die young, formed around nearer to the galactic bulge, but other stars formed from molecular clouds along the spiral arms, stars that have longer life cycle than the inner massive stars.

No I´m not. But I´m not buying the modern standard premesis of the "cycle of stars".
Of course stars located nearer to the center are younger than stars out in the galactic arms as the formative motion goes from within the galactic center and outwards.
This also also goes for your next reply where you "forget" to focus on the very formative motion itself.

gnostic said:
If the sun is located on the thin disc, then, I am correct in that the sun didn’t at the centre, then move outwards. The sun have formed in the Orion spur, along with other stars, including younger stars that have been and are still being formed in the Orion Nebula, and the sun have longer lifespan than those inner stars on the thick disc.

The very point is this:
"By tracking fast-produced elements, specifically magnesium in this study, astronomers can determine how rapidly different parts of the Milky Way were formed. The research suggests the inner regions of the Galaxy assembled faster than the outer regions, which took much longer time to form, supporting ideas that our Galaxy grew from the inside-out".

This is exactly what you could´ve deduced from the very Stories of Creation - if you had a serious interest to work with the ancient myths and their astronomical and cosmological contents, which you obviously don´t have.

The OP here is to work positively with these myths and if you don´t, just leave the thread.

Native · Jul 31, 2020

gnostic said:
I am not the who brought up "Dark Matter", you did.
I did not say anything about dark matter in this thread...NOT ONCE, until just now. Whether they exist or not, I have nothing to say about it.

Without "dark matter" the entire standing modern cosmology cannot even hypothezise what´s going on in galaxies.

Except from the link to a galactic inside-out formation, you can´t rely on what modern science otherwise says about the galaxies since they were wrong in the first place and was forced to invent something which cannot be directly observed. This was my point.

gnostic said:
I am not denying that stars were formed in the inner region of the Milky Way, but those nebulas demonstrate stars can form on the spiral arms, where there are concentration of dust and ionized gases, like these nebulas. New stars have been formed WITHOUT being located near the centre of the galaxy.
Even that article you linked, say that stars can form ON those arms, including our Sun.
The stars that generally form closer to the centre, tend to be far more massive than our sun, with shorter lifespan. Our Sun is relatively young (compared to the age of the Milky Way), less massive, therefore have lifespan of billions of years.

You´re STILL ignoring the very formative motion of the inside-out formation as said and claimed in the link - as also logically deduced from ancient Stories of Creation/Formation.

Native · Jul 31, 2020

gnostic said:
I am not denying that stars were formed in the inner region of the Milky Way, but those nebulas demonstrate stars can form on the spiral arms, where there are concentration of dust and ionized gases, like these nebulas. New stars have been formed WITHOUT being located near the centre of the galaxy.

I in fact agree in this, but the INITIAL and OVERALL motion is clear: Laws of gravity cannot make a repulsive inside-out going swirling motion as indirectly concluded in the linked article.

Just by looking at this barred galaxy it should be obvious for everyone that gravity cannot make such a swirling motion with an abrupt over 90 degree turn form the bars to the galactic arms.

Our galaxy formes inside out and this is governed by an electromagnetic force and cirquit and this force is called Atum-Ra, the "fiery light" in the Egyptian myth of creation/formation.

This INITIAL central EM (Atum-Ra) force induces other magnetic circuits in the surroundings, which again induces electric currents and so on, thus causing SECONDARY formation of stars in the galactic arms, hence your reference to the star formation in the Orion Arm and otherwhere. But such a SECONDARY formation is not taking place in close connection with the Solar System.

EDIT: This formative INITIAL and SECONDARY EM motion of course also confirms younger stars - and even dwarf galaxies - to be formed in the Milky Way surroundings, as observed by telescopes.

The inside-out going motion in barred galaxies in fact falsifies the very idea of "gravity" included the hypothesis of "stellar formation", (Nebular Hypothesis), which is why, even some of the explanations in the linked article are questionable as the scientist here also refers to gravitational ideas of formation.

Native · Aug 1, 2020

Subject: Ancient Creation and Present Formation Hypothesis. Part 1.

Abstract:
When studying cultural Comparative Religion and Mythology, there are lots of obvious similarities which naturally derives from the common terrestrial and celestial conditions. To the best of my knowledge ancient myths didn´t describe a creation of the entire Universe, but specifically of the pre-conditions of creation/formation and of the very creation/formation of the Milky Way and everything in it. That is: The ancient stories connects the formation of the Solar System with the formation of the Milky Way-

Classification of Creation Myths
"A creation myth (or cosmogonic myth) is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, members of cultures often ascribe varying degrees of truth to their creation myths. In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, metaphorically, symbolically and sometimes in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical myths—that is, they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness.

Creation ex nihilo in which the creation is through the thought, word, dream or bodily secretions of a divine being.
Creation by Light. (My general approach in this thread)
Earth diver creation in which a diver, usually a bird or amphibian sent by a creator, plunges to the seabed through a primordial ocean to bring up sand or mud which develops into a terrestrial world.
Emergence myths in which progenitors pass through a series of worlds and metamorphoses until reaching the present world.
Creation by the dismemberment of a primordial being.
Creation by the splitting or ordering of a primordial unity such as the cracking of a cosmic egg or a bringing order from chaos.

Me: The ex nihilo is not a creation by "through the thought, word, dream", but visions of the creation/formation. Formation via "Light" occurs in many ancient Stories of Creation. The rest of the points all describes symbolically the transformative motion and creation which forms "solid matters from the primordial ocean of "hydrogen and helium and dust", briefly described.

Reference to the Egyptian example of the Creation Myth here

Definition of Light
"The electromagnetic spectrum is the range of frequencies (the spectrum) of electromagnetic radiation and their respective wavelengths and photon energies.

The electromagnetic spectrum covers electromagnetic waves with frequencies ranging from below one hertz to above 1025 hertz, corresponding to wavelengths from thousands of kilometers down to a fraction of the size of an atomic nucleus. This frequency range is divided into separate bands, and the electromagnetic waves within each frequency band are called by different names; beginning at the low frequency (long wavelength) end of the spectrum these are: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays at the high-frequency (short wavelength) end. The electromagnetic waves in each of these bands have different characteristics, such as how they are produced, how they interact with matter, and their practical applications. The limit for long wavelengths is the size of the universe itself, while it is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length. Gamma rays, X-rays, and high ultraviolet are classified as ionizing radiation as their photons have enough energy to ionize atoms, causing chemical reactions.

In most of the frequency bands above, a technique called spectroscopy can be used to physically separate waves of different frequencies, producing a spectrum showing the constituent frequencies. Spectroscopy is used to study the interactions of electromagnetic waves with matter. Other technological uses are described under electromagnetic radiation.

Me: "Light" is just the human physical visible part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, but it seems from references from native cultures that the human spiritual skills are able to observe other electromagnetic frequensies and ranges. "Everything is connected" it is said in native cultures". This has to be included when discussing the ancient perception of creation/formation and their Creation Stories.

End of Part 1

Native · Aug 1, 2020

Subject: Ancient Creation and Present Formation Hypothesis. Part 2.

Gravitational Formation Hypothesis of the Solar System.
"The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.5 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud. Most of the collapsing mass collected in the center, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed.

This model, known as the nebular hypothesis was first developed in the 18th century by Emanuel Swedenborg, Immanuel Kant, and Pierre-Simon Laplace. Its subsequent development has interwoven a variety of scientific disciplines including astronomy, physics, geology, and planetary science. Since the dawn of the space age in the 1950s and the discovery of extrasolar planets in the 1990s, the model has been both challenged and refined to account for new observations".

"The various planets are thought to have formed from the solar nebula, the disc-shaped cloud of gas and dust left over from the Sun's formation.The currently accepted method by which the planets formed is accretion, in which the planets began as dust grains in orbit around the central protostar. Through direct contact and self-organization, these grains formed into clumps up to 200 metres in diameter, which in turn collided to form larger bodies (planetesimals) of ~10 kilometres (km) in size. These gradually increased through further collisions, growing at the rate of centimetres per year over the course of the next few million years".

Me: In generally I refuse this 18th century idea of Solar System formation as it is disconnected from the Milky Way formation and motion in where the Solar System orbits the Milky Way center and logically are connected to this formative center, just like the planetary formation is connected to the Sun. Ancient cultures had it that the Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way creation/formation.

I also refuse this old idea because the gravitational ideas of formation are based on assumptions and not on real scientific dynamics. (No one can describe a gravity force and Einstein said that "gravity" is not a force at all).

The Electric approach to formation.

In this video, "Black Hole or Cosmic Light Switch" several issues are being discussed and several examples of constantly astrophysical surprises are mentioned and compared logically to the Electric Universe explanations.

Note: I´m not a member of the ThunderboltsProject (TBP) and I´m not supporting everything in the TBP society, but in this case, just their very strict electric universe approach. Otherwise, the TBP works with anceint Myths of Creation but just connects these to planets, thus seriously distorting both the myths and the ancient astronomical understanding.

In this mythical approach, the TBP has it that "once upon a time some planets were located hovering in a line closely over the Earth celestial north pole" - a mad idea in where the TBP take electromagnetic forces from the Sun to once have captured these planets and located these over the Earth celestial pole. And where "electric discharge scarrings2 should have caused all kinds of "geographical" patterns on the Earth and other planets.

Totally bunkers all based on misinterpreted Myths of Creation, initially suggested by Immanuel Velikovsky, a Russian psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who wrote the controversial "Worlds in Collisions".

But Velikovsky ALSO argued that "electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics" (Which is correct ONLY if the Solar System mechanics are connected to the EM formation in the galactic center) Read "Cosmos without Gravity" here.

Resume:
1) Ancient cultures did not describe a creation of the entire Universe as they thought this to be of an eternal nature. They specifically described the creation/formation of the Milky Way and everything else created in this, including the Solar System
2) Modern cosmological science don´t connect the Solar System formation to the Milky Way formation despite the observed orbital connection with it´s center - as included in the ancient Stories of Creation/formation.
3) EM in all it´s electric frequensies, is the governing force in the Universe, working specifically on the atomic plasma levels of formation.
4) The EM forces binds atoms together, thus giving weight to stars and planets and everything else created.
5) "Gravity" is an illusion as it is the weight of the gaseous atmosphere on a planet which provides the downwards pressure concept of weight.
6) Rotational and orbital motions are all the result of the very EM helical motion of electricity and it´s magnetic field of formation.

Relevant comments are welcome - especially comments which tries to connect and compare the ancient and modern world perceptions.

Regards
Native

Wandering Monk · Aug 1, 2020

Joseph Campbell's idea is that all myths are just explanations of things we don't understand. As our understanding increases, there is less room for myths.

gnostic · Aug 1, 2020

Native said:
Subject: Ancient Creation and Present Formation Hypothesis. Part 2.

Gravitational Formation Hypothesis of the Solar System.
"The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.5 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud. Most of the collapsing mass collected in the center, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed.

This model, known as the nebular hypothesis was first developed in the 18th century by Emanuel Swedenborg, Immanuel Kant, and Pierre-Simon Laplace. Its subsequent development has interwoven a variety of scientific disciplines including astronomy, physics, geology, and planetary science. Since the dawn of the space age in the 1950s and the discovery of extrasolar planets in the 1990s, the model has been both challenged and refined to account for new observations".

"The various planets are thought to have formed from the solar nebula, the disc-shaped cloud of gas and dust left over from the Sun's formation.The currently accepted method by which the planets formed is accretion, in which the planets began as dust grains in orbit around the central protostar. Through direct contact and self-organization, these grains formed into clumps up to 200 metres in diameter, which in turn collided to form larger bodies (planetesimals) of ~10 kilometres (km) in size. These gradually increased through further collisions, growing at the rate of centimetres per year over the course of the next few million years".

Me: In generally I refuse this 18th century idea of Solar System formation as it is disconnected from the Milky Way formation and motion in where the Solar System orbits the Milky Way center and logically are connected to this formative center, just like the planetary formation is connected to the Sun. Ancient cultures had it that the Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way creation/formation.

I also refuse this old idea because the gravitational ideas of formation are based on assumptions and not on real scientific dynamics. (No one can describe a gravity force and Einstein said that "gravity" is not a force at all).

The Electric approach to formation.

In this video, "Black Hole or Cosmic Light Switch" several issues are being discussed and several examples of constantly astrophysical surprises are mentioned and compared logically to the Electric Universe explanations.

Note: I´m not a member of the ThunderboltsProject (TBP) and I´m not supporting everything in the TBP society, but in this case, just their very strict electric universe approach. Otherwise, the TBP works with anceint Myths of Creation but just connects these to planets, thus seriously distorting both the myths and the ancient astronomical understanding.

In this mythical approach, the TBP has it that "once upon a time some planets were located hovering in a line closely over the Earth celestial north pole" - a mad idea in where the TBP take electromagnetic forces from the Sun to once have captured these planets and located these over the Earth celestial pole. And where "electric discharge scarrings2 should have caused all kinds of "geographical" patterns on the Earth and other planets.

Totally bunkers all based on misinterpreted Myths of Creation, initially suggested by Immanuel Velikovsky, a Russian psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who wrote the controversial "Worlds in Collisions".

But Velikovsky ALSO argued that "electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics" (Which is correct ONLY if the Solar System mechanics are connected to the EM formation in the galactic center) Read "Cosmos without Gravity" here.

Resume:
1) Ancient cultures did not describe a creation of the entire Universe as they thought this to be of an eternal nature. They specifically described the creation/formation of the Milky Way and everything else created in this, including the Solar System
2) Modern cosmological science don´t connect the Solar System formation to the Milky Way formation despite the observed orbital connection with it´s center - as included in the ancient Stories of Creation/formation.
3) EM in all it´s electric frequensies, is the governing force in the Universe, working specifically on the atomic plasma levels of formation.
4) The EM forces binds atoms together, thus giving weight to stars and planets and everything else created.
5) "Gravity" is an illusion as it is the weight of the gaseous atmosphere on a planet which provides the downwards pressure concept of weight.
6) Rotational and orbital motions are all the result of the very EM helical motion of electricity and it´s magnetic field of formation.

Relevant comments are welcome - especially comments which tries to connect and compare the ancient and modern world perceptions.

Regards
Native

I have never read any of Velikovsky’s works except Ages In Chaos, when I was in my late teen, so I cannot comment what he say in Worlds In Collisions.

Back in the day, when I have believed in the Bible, miracles and lot of supernatural things, including ghosts, Loch Ness monsters, Atlantis, Bermuda Triangle, psychics, witchcraft, astrology, lucks, fates, and so on.

One of the things I didn’t buy back then, was Velikovsky’s Ages In Chaos.

So if Worlds In Collision is anything like this crap AiC, then I highly doubt whatever acid trip Velikovsky on with this.

Velikovsky reminds me of garbages written by Robert Bauval, Graham Hancock, Enrich von Däniken. I spent a lot of my times in the library, and read a lot of popular pseudoscience trashes, but I don’t know what possess me to read any of their works...

...misspent youth? Mental masochism?

I fell into the rabbit hole and had my head turned 180-degree.

Anyway, knowing that you are fan of Velikovsky, Native, would explain why I am always on the opposite of the fence, whenever we debate in these forums.

gnostic · Aug 1, 2020

Wandering Monk said:
Joseph Campbell's idea is that all myths are just explanations of things we don't understand. As our understanding increases, there is less room for myths.

I still loved reading myths, even today.

But in some inexplicable ways, I outgrew them. I think that somewhere along the line, I no longer see them explaining anything. I just simply enjoy the storytelling for it own sake.

Too much modern interpretations (and anachronistic interpolation) and critically analysing these myths, tends to ruin good stories.

Wandering Monk · Aug 1, 2020

gnostic said:
I still loved reading myths, even today.

But in some inexplicable ways, I outgrew them. I think that somewhere along the line, I no longer see them explaining anything. I just simply enjoy the storytelling for it own sake.

Too much modern interpretations (and anachronistic interpolation) and critically analysing these myths, tends to ruin good stories.

When I was in elementary school, the books I checked out from the school library were nearly all Greek mythology. Also books about history and archaeology.

Investigating Sacred Waters, Rivers and Deities

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

Active Member

The Lost One

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

The Lost One

The Lost One

The Lost One

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

The Lost One

The Lost One

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

The Lost One

Well-Known Member